[MCirba]

Jeff,

Regarding the agreement to secure 200 acres signed on December 14th, 1906, here's how CBM was quoted the next day;

"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long.  The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to us in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."

And what were the committee going to be working on in the interim?

"We will reproduce the best holes and make the most delightful round that can be conceived.  Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."

To me, the "all concerned" who are giving Macdonald "latitude" in his agreement is the Real Estate Company, who certainly wanted to see Macdonald achieve his goal of creating the best course on the planet near their planned development.

Why stake out land only to have to do it all again after determining which holes to reproduce and their distances?   The Real Estate Company had no plans for the rest of Sebonac Neck at that time and the land certainly wasn't going anywhere.   These were very practical men.  

Why incur that needless waste of time and money?

[DMoriarty]

"Necessary facilities" is a euphemism for toilet. It is not a euphemism for one and a half acre building lots in fee simple for housing.   At this point remember that there was to be no formal clubhouse.  If indeed it was part of the plan at this point, allowing the founders to build private locker and bathing facilities is hardly what we have been talking about.

[MCirba]

I came across this definition of "bungalow" as it was known during the "Arts and Crafts" period of the time, as well as a photo.

American Craftsman bungalow

The American Craftsman bungalow typified the common styles of the American Arts and Crafts movement, with common features usually including: low-pitch roof lines on a gabled or hipped roof; deeply overhanging eaves; exposed rafters or decorative brackets under the eaves; and a front porch beneath an extension of the main roof. Two of the manufacturing companies that produced kits and sold them from catalogues for construction on sites during the turn of the 19th century were the Sears Company and The Aladdin Company.



I'm not a real estate expert but it looks as though you could get quite a few of these on, what, perhaps quarter acre lots?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I think we are all missing it, but its in that newspaper shared last night by Bryan.....in the article below - They were giving each founder profitable one acre melon patches! They say they were very profitable! 

BTW, if it was a shared bathhouse for the members, I don't want to delve into those details.

As to what "Make sense" regarding those final property lines, I hope David will answer, because I am starting to believe some legal procedures would probably describe what makes sense more than a newspaper report.  I speculated that he probably still had some wiggle room from that blue line print property line, but he didn't still have a carte blanch over the 450 acres to be determined later.

I have argued that it took longer to finalize the routing than certainly three days, but I would also argue that that figuring out the basic property after October doesn't allow enough time either. I have argued it wouldn't make sense for CBM to route on property he didn't own, but it doesn't make sense to have Raynor survey 450 acres in a short time, either.  It seems to me whatever maps he sent would have been narrowed down.

I agree they had some latitude, but was it the 2-3 acres of extra land Merion later had, or was it the right to do as Pat once suggested, go up into some superior land on the future Sabin estate?  I can envision it being very minor, a la a tweak of the border on the blue print.  But, I think David or another lawyer on this site would be better qualified to describe the probable technicalities that you, me, or some cub reporter from 1906......and I can't envision a real estate company giving CBM endless time to make up his mind, as they were business people.  Likewise, I can't figure CBM studying for over a year and cramming all the routing into three months......

As to the "distances and holes to be reproduced", as I have said to you in an email, I think he had land allocations in mind, basically two holes wide, with some holes firmly fixed (like 3, 4, 13, 14,) and probably others - like 18, (if its a water hole, we know its going to be snug to the water) 17 (the hilltop tee was easy to find early, and started to set up the counterclockwise routing, and then 1 and 2 to get back somewhere near where he envisioned the 3rd tee for Alps, etc.)  I think 14-15 and 5-12 could have been less defined placeholders, with fewer signature topo features.

Depending on David's answers, I accept his term of "rough routing" even though I envision it slightly differently and might have used different terms. Not only am I a moron.....I may be overly finicky in terminology.

[Sven Nilsen]

Bryan:

Great article, which provides some interesting details.

1.  In the first column, it notes that despite what covered the ground, the golf "cracks" were able to perceive in the nature of the soil and the roll of the ground the future course.

2.  Nothing new in the list of holes, but they are still referring to them by number such that the nines hadn't been switched.  This would have been a few months removed from the burning of the Inn.

3.  As of July 1908, in the middle of the summer with the drought that created all of the grass growing issues, they already had a complete irrigation system in place.  This suggests to me that that was the plan all along, or at the very least they realized very early in the process that they would need irrigation.

4.  There are a number of inaccuracies, however, one of them being the notation that the course had been under construction for two years, meaning some time in 1906 as the starting point.  We know that wasn't the case.

5.  They also describe the course as being 1,000 yards wide.  It was wide, but I don't think it was that wide.

6.  As for the Mike's point regarding Travis being depicted with the others "laying out" the course, the article is dated, but the photo is not.  It could be from 1906, 1907 or 1908.  My guess is sometime in 1907, as they appear to be standing on uncleared land.

7.  With respect to the bungalow quote, I'd put more credence in it if we knew who the unnamed source was.  It tells us nothing about CBM's mindset on this point, and if it was at all a concern regarding how the land was used.  The fact that the speaker of the quote tells us that no clubhouse would be built is enough for me to question the veracity of the entire comment, as we know there were always plans for a permanent clubhouse at some point (the discussion early on of bringing in associate members to fund its construction being dispositive).

8.  Finally, the pictures are rather fuzzy, but I couldn't help noting the similarity between these two scenes:

[MCirba]

Jeff,

I think we're all a bunch of melon heads!  

Seriously, I believe the "water hole" that CBM describes with a potential 240 yard carry in his December 15th reported quote is the Cape hole, which is also one of the four holes CBM describes finding early in his book.  

Also, related to what CBM had in his possession after his return from abroad, the article points out;

For this purpose Mr. C. B. MacDonald...made an automobile tour of England and played upon the noted links of that country, and by consultation with the "crack" players abroad selected what are perhaps the hardest holes, or at least those having the most interesting and complex features, and with great care had drawings made, together with measurements and photographs, and thus has been able to reproduce on the dunes of Long Island almost the exact counterpart of these holes."

Do you think those "consultations" with the best players abroad happened while he was there, after he came home, or both?

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff,

Our posts likely crossed but I think it's very unlikely that what CBM sent overseas to those gentlemen that was referenced in the October 15th article were contour maps of the Sebonac Neck property.  

Even if those gentlemen had played those holes many times before, how many of those holes and parts of holes and other hole concepts from the ancient links courses were actually put to paper in those days?   How many were previously drawn to scale?   Especially for discussion about reproducing them across the ocean?  

I would imagine they'd have lots to discuss related to those holes, including gaining more consensus regarding which to try and reproduce.  After all, CBM had only just returned with reams of information (i.e photos, drawings, etc.) from many courses in mid-June 1906.   There was a lot to digest and discuss.

Mike:

The best explanation of the conversations that occurred regarding the templates was written by CBM himself.  Go back and reread his Golfers Magazine piece on the Ideal Course (published in Jan. 1907, but as this was a monthly probably written a month or two prior at the least).

If you don't have it, I can post it here (I'm sure its been posted elsewhere).

Sven

[MCirba]

Bryan:

Great article, which provides some interesting details.

1.  In the first column, it notes that despite what covered the ground, the golf "cracks" were able to perceive in the nature of the soil and the roll of the ground the future course.

2.  Nothing new in the list of holes, but they are still referring to them by number such that the nines hadn't been switched.  This would have been a few months removed from the burning of the Inn.

3.  As of July 1908, in the middle of the summer with the drought that created all of the grass growing issues, they already had a complete irrigation system in place.  This suggests to me that that was the plan all along, or at the very least they realized very early in the process that they would need irrigation.

4.  There are a number of inaccuracies, however, one of them being the notation that the course had been under construction for two years, meaning some time in 1906 as the starting point.  We know that wasn't the case.

5.  They also describe the course as being 1,000 yards wide.  It was wide, but I don't think it was that wide.

6.  As for the Mike's point regarding Travis being depicted with the others "laying out" the course, the article is dated, but the photo is not.  It could be from 1906, 1907 or 1908.  My guess is sometime in 1907, as they appear to be standing on uncleared land.

7.  With respect to the bungalow quote, I'd put more credence in it if we knew who the unnamed source was.  It tells us nothing about CBM's mindset on this point, and if it was at all a concern regarding how the land was used.  The fact that the speaker of the quote tells us that no clubhouse would be built is enough for me to question the veracity of the entire comment, as we know there were always plans for a permanent clubhouse at some point (the discussion early on of bringing in associate members to fund its construction being dispositive).

8.  Finally, the pictures are rather fuzzy, but I couldn't help noting the similarity between these two scenes:

Sven,

I agree with several points but you're also really starting to reach in others.

1) Yes, of course we know that CBM and Whigham were able to determine that the ground was appropriately rolling and the soil was sand based during their first "2 or 3" rides via horseback.   I'm the one who argued that they definitely saw the Alps hill and redan plateau on one of those first rides.   They were on horses because CBM told us that was the only way to navigate the property but we also know based on those rides they saw enough to convince them to make an offer.  

But here we have yet another article describing the condition of the property as difficult, "When the land was obtained it was covered with brush, shrubbery and rose vines and a growth of rank grass, swamps and other topographical difficulties, which involved a large outlay of money and labor to clear..."

2) Agreed.

3) Wasn't there a large water tower behind the 8th green back then?   I forget the history of that one, but agree t's likely CBM wanted a fresh water source.

4 & 5) Agreed.

6) I looked at that and it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures.     Where a photo source was from outside and info available those sources are noted.  

And, as I've noted here previously, an August 15th Brooklyn Daily Eagle detailed article stated; "Acting as co-workers with Mr. Macdonald are Mr. Whigham, Walter J. Travis, and Findlay S. Douglas.   Their suggestions and ideas have been carefully carried out by Mortimer Payne...who has had charge of the Shinnecock Hills golf course for so many years.   Few persons have any conception of the difficulties he has had to surmount.   Several low spots containing water to a depth of four feet have been drained, filled in and left dry as a bone."

7) The un-named source is described as "one of the Founders" no?   Why would he still be attached to a notion, albeit modified downwards in scope, that you claim had been dispelled two years previously?   Regarding the 1904 Founders Agreement that you see as "dispositive", I thought that was only a "suggestion"?   Why do you think they didn't build it from the beginning if that was the case?   What changed?   In the end, was it the Founders or the Associate Members who built the clubhouse?

Regarding the picture comparison, for a guy who claims to not have a horse in this race you sure seem to be reaching.  Thanks for that chuckle though!    

[MCirba]

Mike:

The best explanation of the conversations that occurred regarding the templates was written by CBM himself.  Go back and reread his Golfers Magazine piece on the Ideal Course (published in Jan. 1907, but as this was a monthly probably written a month or two prior at the least).

If you don't have it, I can post it here (I'm sure its been posted elsewhere).

Sven

Sven,

I don't have it and would greatly appreciate if you could reproduce it here.   Thanks!

[Sven Nilsen]

1) Yes, of course we know that CBM and Whigham were able to determine that the ground was appropriately rolling and the soil was sand based during their first "2 or 3" rides via horseback.   They were on horses because CBM told us that was the only way to navigate the property but we also know based on those rides they saw enough to convince them to make an offer.  

But here we have yet another article describing the condition of the property as difficult, "When the land was obtained it was covered with brush, shrubbery and rose vines and a growth of rank grass, swamps and other topographical difficulties, which involved a large outlay of money and labor to clear..."

We've covered this before.  They were on horseback to get over the difficult parts of the property (I don't believe the entire parcel was as impassable as you suggest), and also to cover a good deal of ground in a reasonable amount of time.  The statement you quoted above does a good job of describing the diversity of the land, something I commented on yesterday regarding your broad stroke tendencies.  

3) Wasn't there a large water tower behind the 8th green back then?   I forget the history of that one, but agree t's likely CBM wanted a fresh water source.

Mike, I'll find your quote from earlier in the thread as to how the loss of the grass in 1908 caused them to have to start over with a new irrigation system.  The article describes that system as well in the works, suggesting it had been started well before July 1908.

6) I looked at that and it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures.     Where a photo source was from outside and info available those sources are noted. 

When do you think that particular photo was taken?  If it was anywhere near the date of the article, than at the very least you'd have to concede that the caption is completely misleading, as they were well past "laying out" the course. 

And, as I've noted here previously, an August 15th Brooklyn Daily Eagle detailed article stated; "Acting as co-workers with Mr. Macdonald are Mr. Whigham, Walter J. Travis, and Findlay S. Douglas.   Their suggestions and ideas have been carefully carried out by Mortimer Payne...who has had charge of the Shinnecock Hills golf course for so many years.   Few persons have any conception of the difficulties he has had to surmount.   Several low spots containing water to a depth of four feet have been drained, filled in and left dry as a bone."

7) The un-named source is described as "one of the Founders" no?   Why would he be attached to a notion that you claim had been dispelled two years previously?   Regarding the 1904 Founders Agreement that you see as "dispositive", I thought that was only a "suggestion"?   Why do you think they didn't build it from the beginning if that was the case?   What changed?   In the end, was it the Founders or the Associate Members who built the clubhouse?

Were bungalows built?  Why not?

Regarding the picture comparison, for a guy who claims to not have a horse in this race you sure seem to be reaching.  Thanks for that chuckle though!   

My only horse is common sense and a respect for the truth.  I am certainly not being persuaded or guided by arguments I made in the past regarding this course or other courses.  And I'm not sure why you're laughing at a comparison between a photo and a painting that you previously stated had no resemblance to what the ground looked like.  They look pretty damn similar to me.

[MCirba]

Sven,

If that photo of CBM, Travis, et.al. was taken from the same vantage point as that picture was painted, I'd agree with you.   However, various areas of the Shinnecock Hills had various histories.   Some had previously been cleared for farming.   The Sebonac Neck had not previous to CBM.   At the time that photo was taken was almost certainly post-clearing of Sebonac Neck.  

I'm only going by the descriptions and direct quotes of others, and they are mostly first-hand accounts.  I think we can agree to let this one rest and I didn't mean any offense with the chuckle, sorry.

As far as "laying out" indicating when that photo with Travis was taken, you're one of the lucky ones who was spared the torturous debates we used to go through here to argue about what was meant by the term.

I think it's safe to say that what we mutually learned at the time was that the way it was used could mean anything from designing on paper, in the field with stakes, or constructing the course on the ground post-design were all termed "laying out".   I think I'm safe in saying it was basically anything prior to course opening and was used to describe a multitude of activities in the nascent game in the United States.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

I believe you do have the Golfing Magazine article, which was a reprint of the Outing Magazine piece that was included later in Scotland's gift.

The first part of the article discusses the back and forth he had with various parties on certain holes and courses that he had studied.

The most interesting aspect of the article is its timing.  The Outing Magazine piece was crafted after his return from Europe and during the time period he was narrowing down his thoughts on an ideal course and what he would be doing on the ground at NGLA.  I noted this previously, but the comparison between what he wrote about as an ideal course, and what was actually done on the ground is an interesting study, especially when you consider that he did not use certain template holes on Sebonac Neck.  This suggests a strong correlation between the ground and the design.  For example, he wasn't going to force a Biarritz onto a course where it didn't fit.

Sven

[MCirba]

Mike:

I believe you do have the Golfing Magazine article, which was a reprint of the Outing Magazine piece that was included later in Scotland's gift.

The first part of the article discusses the back and forth he had with various parties on certain holes and courses that he had studied.

The most interesting aspect of the article is its timing.  The Outing Magazine piece was crafted after his return from Europe and during the time period he was narrowing down his thoughts on an ideal course and what he would be doing on the ground at NGLA.  I noted this previously, but the comparison between what he wrote about as an ideal course, and what was actually done on the ground is an interesting study, especially when you consider that he did not use certain template holes on Sebonac Neck.  This suggests a strong correlation between the ground and the design.  For example, he wasn't going to force a Biarritz onto a course where it didn't fit.

Sven

Sven,

I'll go back and look further, thanks.   I do recall noting many of those things and agree that the timing is relevant to the discussion of what was going on.

I also agree that he wasn't going to force anything on the ground that didn't fit naturally.  

**ADDED** Sven, is that original article reproduced in whole in "Scotland's Gift"?

[Sven Nilsen]

As far as "laying out" indicating when that photo with Travis was taken, you're one of the lucky ones who was spared the torturous debates we used to go through here to argue about what was meant by the term.

I think it's safe to say that what we mutually learned at the time was that the way it was used could mean anything from designing on paper, in the field with stakes, or constructing the course on the ground post-design were all termed "laying out".   I think I'm safe in saying it was basically anything prior to course opening and was used to describe a multitude of activities in the nascent game in the United States.

Mike:

"Spared" might not be the right term.  I read this site for a long time before commenting.

Having read every early golf magazine, numerous books and thousands of newspaper articles on the courses built in the US, I am well aware that the term meant different things to different people under different contexts.

If the caption is right, and the photo was taken during the layout phase (prior to the land being cleared), then the only logical conclusion is that there were parts of the property that had a more open grassy look.  On this piece of property, it would seem that you went from a wooded area at the south end, up to a swampy area with the densest vegetation in the middle, to a more open grassy area on the bluff up where the clubhouse sits today.  Admitted speculation, but this makes sense to me based on exactly where each of those various sections lay with respect to the elevations of the course and the distances from the Bay.

If the caption is wrong, then what we are looking at is a bunch of guys examine a course that was well into the construction phase.  

Either the photo is contemporaneous to what is included in the article itself or it predates that text by at least a year.  

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

One thing that seems to have also been revised between the 1906 Outing article and the end result of his Ideal course would be the ideal widths of fairways.  

"The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented.
Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than
St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better
than it is now. I note that Mr. Dealy, Mr. Lucas and Mr.
Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in
golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over
fifty yards."

Also, I think you're assuming that the author of the article is using the term "laying out" in the design sense when I think he's probably referring to directing the construction phase.   He also has a photo of Mortimer Payne, who was supervising that construction.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

I'll go back and look further, thanks.   I do recall noting many of those things and agree that the timing is relevant to the discussion of what was going on.

I also agree that he wasn't going to force anything on the ground that didn't fit naturally.  

**ADDED** Sven, is that original article reproduced in whole in "Scotland's Gift"?

I haven't compared the three publications in detail, but here's the original Outing piece:  

[DMoriarty]

Sven,  All good points in your post 1154 above.  Maybe the author meant 1000 ft wide. There are a few other small inaccuracies, but probably not worth dwelling over.
____________________________________________________
Mike,  

The article indicates that the small bungalows "can contain [] lockers and baths and necessary conveniences." This is a description of a self-contained private dressing area or locker room.   It is similar in principle to the private dressing areas CBM discussed in 1912, only there was no clubhouse in 1908 so he anticipated that they would be individual structures.  

Post all the photographs of homes that you like, but this is not a description of a home.  
____________________________________________________

It may or may not be significant, but the use of the word "can" caught my eye.   "Can" is often used to express permission. "Small bungalows which can contain . . .."   I can't help but consider this in the context of the statement from the developer limiting the use of the property to a golf course.  Small private dressing/bathing/locker structures would seem fit within the limitation, and it makes me wonder if the Founder who provided the quote isn't referring to something in agreement with the developer which allowed for the creation of such structures but limited their use.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

One thing that seems to have also been revised between the 1906 Outing article and the end result of his Ideal course would be the ideal widths of fairways.  

"The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented.
Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than
St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better
than it is now. I note that Mr. Dealy, Mr. Lucas and Mr.
Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in
golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over
fifty yards."

Also, I think you're assuming that the author of the article is using the term "laying out" in the design sense when I think he's probably referring to directing the construction phase.   He also has a photo of Mortimer Payne, who was supervising that construction.

Not sure where you're going with the ideal width comment, and I think the articles are consistent on that point.  

He discussed fairways being 45 - 60 yards wide.  What that doesn't include is doglegs, massive bunkering along the fairways (like the Sahara) and other features that effectively broaden the playing corridor.

I'm guessing you are suggesting that amount of room he planned to use changed, taking up more of the "4 acre" wide swath that they purchased.  I don't think that is the case.  He was not building a cramped space, and with room between holes on the interior and the mantra (as noted in the article) that OB should never be in play, the actual width of the course was much wider than simply thinking about two 45 or 50 or 60 yard fairways adjacent to each other.

As to your last point, I don't agree.  I can't recall a single instance of "laying out" being used to describe work being done over a year after construction began.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike,  

The article indicates that the small bungalows "can contain their lockers and baths and necessary conveniences." This is a description of a self-contained private dressing area or locker room.   It is similar in principle to the private dressing areas CBM discussed in 1912, only there was no clubhouse in 1908 so he anticipated that they would be individual structures.  

Post all the photographs of homes that you like, but this is not a description of a home.  
____________________________________________________

It may or may not be significant, but the use of the word "can" caught my eye.   "Can" is often used to express permission. "Small bungalows which can contain . . .."   I can't help but consider this in the context of the statement from the developer limiting the use of the property to a golf course.  Small private dressing/bathing/locker structures would seem fit within the limitation, and it makes me wonder if the Founder who provided the quote isn't referring to something in agreement with the developer which allowed for the creation of such structures but limited their use.

David:

In any case, it certainly doesn't sound like a real estate play or an investment opportunity.  And we've certainly moved beyond the idea that they were contemplating using 90 acres of the property for 1.5 acre parcels (the old red herring that 90 + 110 = what was bought).

Sven

[DMoriarty]

Regarding Mikes' theory that the course was meant to be narrow with houses around the edges or even between the holes, CBM also discussed the necessity of alternate routes (allowing the shorter weaker player to play around the hazard) in the same article.

[DMoriarty]

Regarding the photos, all we know is that they were taken some time before the article was published. The idea that Mike Cirba would claim to be able to look at this rough, nearly illegible copy and be able to determine when these photos were taken says a lot about how Mike's mind works (". . . it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures.")  Really?

As for the captions, I wouldn't give them much weight, considering they show a "Battle Hole" and depict CBM's Road Role ("St. Andrews") as hanging out over the Peconic.

[MCirba]

Regarding Mikes' theory that the course was meant to be narrow with houses around the edges or even between the holes, CBM also discussed the necessity of alternate routes (allowing the shorter weaker player to play around the hazard) in the same article.

David,

Where did I say the course was meant to be narrow?  50 yard wide fairways are even big enough to contain our respective mollydooker games and he secured on average 280 yards of width, certainly enough to contain an out and back routing and much more if that's what he chose to do and the course would still be spacious.


And despite Whigham characterizing the plan to provide housing lots as "ingenious" earlier in 1906, CBM made clear from the start that this wasn't about investment but about golf and accommodating his founders.

You can characterize and parse the small bungalows still planned in 1908 all you wish but members would not be provided land to individually build the Job Johnnys with an overhead spigot that you're describing.  

[DMoriarty]

Where did I say the course was meant to be narrow?

For years you have argued that the course was meant to be much narrower than it turned out, and that CBM planned to put housing along the borders or even between holes.  

You can characterize and parse the small bungalows still planned in 1908 all you wish but members would not be provided land to individually build the Job Johnnys with an overhead spigot that you're describing.

Again with the distortions, Mike?  I don't know what a "Job Johnny" is, but what I'm "describing" comes straight out of the article.  "Small bungalows which can contain [the Founders'] baths, lockers, and necessary conveniences."  That is NOT the description of a home.  Even you must see that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Back in the beginning it was suggested that:  "We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground".  Over time the debate here has turned that into a real estate play, or a housing development or ......................  

Various reports over time indicated that there might be villas or now bungalows.  The various news reports suggest that things evolved over those early years, but in the end nothing happened.  In the end no land was given to the founders and no buildings were built.  It is no surprise that the initial possibility of ground being given to the founders withered and died on the vine.  

This most recent news item from 1908 suggests to me that one of the founders felt that the site was so remote that the rich guy members who had the means to travel to the course weren't going to unless there were some necessary conveniences there for them.  Of course, that didn't happen and I guess was superseded by the building of the clubhouse in 1910.

What is there to argue about here.

The following clip from the Eagle, April 13, 1908 suggests that there were factions within NGLA debating how best to meet the clubhouse needs of the club after the Shinnecock Inn burned down.  The bungalows with the necessary conveniences might have been part of that discussion.

[MCirba]

Regarding the photos, all we know is that they were taken some time before the article was published. The idea that Mike Cirba would claim to be able to look at this rough, nearly illegible copy and be able to determine when these photos were taken says a lot about how Mike's mind works (". . . it seems most of the photos were likely taken that day by a staff photog onsite as the seem to be of a similar quality and consistency if we're now comparing pictures.")  Really?

As for the captions, I wouldn't give them much weight, considering they show a "Battle Hole" and depict CBM's Road Role ("St. Andrews") as hanging out over the Peconic.

David,

Right on, how do we even know for certain that's Walter Travis in that photo?  

Didn't Macdonald claim he "dropped" Travis, no matter what these contemporaneous reports from 1907 and 1908 report!

Mortimer Payne wasn't hired until May 1907.  I bet they're just using his stock photo they probably used hundreds of times prior.

Sven,

How many courses of that time period took from 1907 until 1910 to open from design through grow in?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()