[MCirba]

Sven,

That's a very good point.

In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?

He mentions that this agreement has come "after one year's study and search", and we know he tells us in Scotland's Gift when he began that search.

We also know he signed the deal on December 14th, 1906.

[Sven Nilsen]

An additional letter from CBM to Frick (same source, dated Nov. 7, 1908) adds a good bit of color to a couple of other items that have been discussed on this thread.

1.  CBM describes the drought conditions that hampered construction efforts.
2.  He notes the course should be ready to be tentatively opened in 1909, but that there was still work to be done to bring it to perfection.
3.  He describes how adjustments would be made in both the bunkering and hole lengths depending upon actual play, particularly how the ball rolled on the ground once the turf was in a condition to allow them to study play.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

That's a very good point.

In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?

We know he signed the deal on December 14th, 1906.

Mike:

I think you're reading too much into it.  It could be there were Founders who knew about it as soon as it happened.  It may be that Frick (and others) were guys he didn't see every week, and thus required a letter.

It could also be that between his new job at RH Thomas & Co., stomping over Sebonac Neck, sending off drawings and descriptions to folks abroad and settling the terms of a 200+ acre purchase he got a little behind in his correspondence.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

Great stuff, thanks for sharing.

Please see my addition of Macdonald ' s mention of how long the process took in my previous post.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Great stuff, thanks for sharing.

Please see my addition of Macdonald ' s mention of how long the process took in my previous post.

Not sure what you're getting at with the process timing issue.

Also, I'm surprised you hadn't seen the Frick letter.  Mark B. has done great work on the CBM timeline, and all of this info has been out there for a while.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

My reference to the process time is Macdonald's comment that his agreement came "after one year's study and search".

In Scotland's Gift he tells us determined that he wanted to purchase land in the Shinnecock Hills a few weeks after the Brooklyn company had made the purchase.   David's timeline has that to be late 1905 at the earliest.

As far as your surprise, recall I'd been away from GCA for some time.   If you can direct me to Mark's work I'd be most appreciative.

***EDIT***  I found it, thanks!

Thanks.

[Sven Nilsen]

I think you should take the "one year" as general guideline, not a specific, hard and fast time period.

It could have been 10 months, it could have been 14 months.

[MCirba]

Sven,

It's also interesting that he talks about the insects in that November 1908 letter to Frick, as follows, again sourced as per your prior post;

Macdonald concludes his letter by noting "a great deal of talk about mosquitoes being a pest on Sebonac Neck. I should like to state here that last year when we first did the clearing, I believe every known insect that came out of the ark was on Sebonac Neck. However, with the clearing of the course, the filling up and draining of the low ground where there was standing water, etc., we scarcely had any insects this year."

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

It's also interesting that he talks about the insects in that November 1908 letter to Frick, as follows, again sourced as per your prior post;

Macdonald concludes his letter by noting "a great deal of talk about mosquitoes being a pest on Sebonac Neck. I should like to state here that last year when we first did the clearing, I believe every known insect that came out of the ark was on Sebonac Neck. However, with the clearing of the course, the filling up and draining of the low ground where there was standing water, etc., we scarcely had any insects this year."

Mike:

Not sure where your mosquito fetish comes from, but who really cares? 

I think you repeatedly make the mistake of ascribing consistent conditions across a 200+ acre parcel of property, particularly a piece of property with water frontage, inland areas, elevation and low lying swampy pieces.

Were there areas that would have been hard to move around on due to brush?  Probably.  But there were probably some open areas (similar to what was depicted in the paintings earlier in the thread) and we know there were paths through parts of the property.

Were there bugs?  Definitely, but those bugs may have been there due to a particularly rainy year in 1906 and/or 1907.  Its possible the 1908 drought was both a blessing and a curse, giving them grass issues but curing their bug problems.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

I have little doubt that Macdonald and Whigham had been to the "site of operations several times" (or at least "2 or 3") by the time of the mid-October articles and that Travis had already been "invited to act as consulting engineer".   That seems consistent with them looking at the site in earnest in the August/September timeframes I had posited as those first horse rides.

However, so much else is inaccurate about the article (including in this one the purchase price) that it seems that the agreement was reported somewhat presumptuously at best.  

I do think it's interesting that this article goes into greater detail about the subsequent process to gather opinions and defer any construction "until the suggestions of as many experts as possible have been received", again indicating ongoing correspondence.

As far as my "mosquito fetish" as you term it, I'm only reliant on first-hand accounts by Macdonald, Travis, and writers such as van Tassel Sutphen for their descriptions of the land in its raw, pre-cleared state.  

***ADDED*** Sven, if an agreement was in place prior to November, 1906, why would Macdonald be quoted at Garden City during the Lesley Cup (InterCity) matches in late October as saying he's looking at different sites (i.e. Montauk)?  It certainly sounds like anything but a done deal at that point.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I re-read The Evangelist last night, and a few things caught my eye, which might be worth discussing among those who have researched and know more than I:

On the blueprint, a strong line is drawn in that same yellow pencil right where Sebonack road is now. On the 1904 USGS maps, there is a stub in about the same place. It would appear that while giving CBM the right to choose his 205 acres, there were some conditions. In addition to the reversions clause, I gather he was required to maintain at least some access to the future Sabin property, which they still owned.  It would be interesting to see the actual purchase agreement to see what else was in there.

I re-read the whole NGLA chapter, starting on page 61. He says CBM tried to buy SH, the land company who controlled the land could have made a nice profit, and the members pressured them to reject the sale.  He notes in italics, but not quotes, that the members were outraged that CBM had the "audacity to purchase out course right out from under us."

Did I miss this discussion?

The narrative on Raynor is confusing, but he (as you might read in Scotland's Gift, depending on interpretation) seems to put Raynor out there for "months of planning" before the purchase of the land.  He claims it was CBM and Raynor who went over the property looking for sites to build holes, not the committee.  The committee was asked on board later, according to George.

I also don't recall these passages being discussed at length here, and am not sure the narrative is as detailed and time oriented as some of us have been, but thought it was worth brining up.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

I don't know why CBM didn't acknowledge the deal at GCGC.  Perhaps he wasn't ready to let it out to the press, and preferred to contact his Founding Members directly first (ala the Frick letter).  Perhaps they had a deal in principal, and were still working out details.  Perhaps he was still thinking about Montauk (and had the ability to do so only having an option), although I find that unlikely as he is noted elsewhere as saying Montauk was never really in the conversation.

As for the mosquitoes, I stand by my assertion that you talk about the property in a way that makes it sound like all 200+ acres were exactly the same, covered in brush, swampy and bug ridden.  Yes, there were low-lying areas and swamps.  But to continue to talk as if the entire piece of land was consistently unsuitable is intentionally misleading.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

I think the most likely scenario is that no agreement was yet in place and it was still being negotiated, particularly the price.  

As far as the condition of the property prior to clearing, I'm only quoting what CBM, Travis, and others said.  What contemporaneous evidence exists that contradicts their accounts that somehow makes me quoting them "intentionally misleading" from your perspective?

[DMoriarty]

In fact, if an agreement was already in place between Macdonald and the Real Estate Company by October 15, 1906 then why did he wait until December 3rd to notify those who had invested in the deal?

Again, Mike, you seem to be ignoring CBM's own words.  According to CBM's account, there was a gap between the time the developer agreed to sell CBM the property, and when CBM obtained an option.  
1.  "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose . . .
2. "Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted . . . ."
3.  "We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . ."

As for rest of the information in the mid-October Articles, I agree with Sven. There is too much accurate and detailed information for you to dismiss the articles as you do.  

As for your convoluted attempt to try explain away the reference to maps showing the undulations and elevations, you've said it all before and the article does not support your stretched reading.  And, you still haven't explained why CBM would be sending John Low detailed diagrams and explanations of the Road Hole.  CBM's hubris was famous, but I don't think it went quite that far.

Regarding your "one year" theory you are again trying to make something out of nothing.

[Sven Nilsen]

As far as the condition of the property prior to clearing, I'm only quoting what CBM, Travis, and others said.  What contemporaneous evidence exists that contradicts their accounts that somehow makes me quoting them "intentionally misleading" from your perspective?

Mike:

You are missing the point.  You are extrapolating bits and pieces from those contemporaneous reports to describe the entire parcel in one broad stroke.  I have no argument with what was reported, just that it doesn't describe the entirety of the property.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

That's because they all described the entire parcel that way.  They didn't say "some parts".  

The realty company determined it was worthless for real estate.  If it was the lovely Meadowlands overlookong the placid blue waters of the bay depicted in those paintings Steve posted how could that be possible?

[DMoriarty]

Sven, A very minor point.  The NY Herald article was from Monday, October 15th, not the 13th. (It is tough to read the date. I had it as Oct. 18th, but the newspaper indicates it was Monday, and that was the 15th.)

That weekend Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and a number of prominent golfers (including at least one other NGLA Founder) had competed in a three day tournament at Myopia, so I imagine that when this issue was being discussed.  

The fact that the article lists out the names of CBM's advisors overseas leaves little doubt in my mind that the information came straight from Macdonald or Whigham.  

EDITED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PAPER   Was there a Evening Telegram article too?
_________________________________________

Mike,  I don't remember which one, but one of the descriptions of the property also mentioned meadows.  

But who cares?  It isn't the historical description, it is what you do with the description.  They mention brambles and mosquitos, and you insists this meant that they couldn't even have placed stakes on the ground to mark off the rough boundaries of the parcel.   That is "intentionally misleading" or at the very least, intentionally misreading.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

That's because they all described the entire parcel that way.  They didn't say "some parts".  

The realty company determined it was worthless for real estate.  If it was the lovely Meadowlands overlookong the placid blue waters of the bay depicted in those paintings Steve posted how could that be possible?

You really don't see what you're doing here, do you?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Agree with the above by Sven and David. Someone posted a property line and parcel map of the area from up to 100 years before.  The USGS survey may had come before. Some of the land nearly was similar in condition to NGLA, I am sure.   

By then, they had long known how to survey in tough areas, hilly areas, swamp areas, etc.  It could be done, but it might have taken twice as long as meadows......

[DMoriarty]

Sven, Another change.  I think the article you posted is from the NY Herald, not the Evening Telegram.   And the date change above.

[MCirba]

Didn't I previously concede based on Jeff's expert opinion that the property could have been surveyed prior, even if the entire site was covered in thick brambles?

Did you miss that Sven?  What could possibly be wrong with pointing out that it was a tough site to work with which was a fact mentioned by Macdonald, Travis, and others?  

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, Another change.  I think the article you posted is from the NY Herald, not the Evening Telegram.   And the date change above.

David:

I'm looking at it right now.  It is the Evening Telegram, and it was the 15th, which was a Monday.

Sven

[MCirba]

That weekend Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and a number of prominent golfers (including at least one other NGLA Founder) had competed in a three day tournament at Myopia, so I imagine that when this issue was being discussed.  

The fact that the article lists out the names of CBM's advisors overseas leaves little doubt in my mind that the information came straight from Macdonald or Whigham.  

And two weeks later after the Lesley Cup at Garden City Macdonald was reported as saying he was still looking at sites in Montauk and near Good Ground in the western Shinnecock Hills from which we can reasonably infer that no agreement had yet been reached, much less for 100k as that report in October stated and that negotiations were continuing.

[Sven Nilsen]

Didn't I previously concede based on Jeff's expert opinion that the property could have been surveyed prior, even if the entire site was covered in thick brambles?

Did you miss that Sven?  What could possibly be wrong with pointing out that it was a tough site to work with which was a fact mentioned by Macdonald, Travis, and others?  

I didn't miss it Mike.  But you're still missing the broader picture, in that you have a habit of missing the finer points when it suits your purposes.

Like your statement a few posts back that the property was worthless for RE purposes.  Obviously it wasn't worthless.  It may not have been as valuable in the eyes of the developer as the property to the west that was plotted, but it wasn't worthless.

The repeated nature of these types comments and how they fit into your overall depiction of the project has a self-serving aura.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

That weekend Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and a number of prominent golfers (including at least one other NGLA Founder) had competed in a three day tournament at Myopia, so I imagine that when this issue was being discussed.  

The fact that the article lists out the names of CBM's advisors overseas leaves little doubt in my mind that the information came straight from Macdonald or Whigham.  

And two weeks later after the Lesley Cup at Garden City Macdonald was reported as saying he was still looking at sites in Montauk and near Good Ground in the western Shinnecock Hills from which we can reasonably infer that no agreement had yet been reached, much less for 100k as that report in October stated and that negotiations were continuing.

$100 K for the property, or $100 K for the course (property, construction, etc.).  Your read is very different than mine on that description.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()