I will be more than happy to answer respectful questions.
A number of posters have asked "respectful questions," but Phil has not answered. Maybe he is waiting for someone to answer his question first . . .
I would ask then, why you would believe that your non-expert opinion should be accepted over that of many true experts in their fields? That question is not meant derogatorily, but rather as a reasonable one
Here are some of the reasons:
1. With the exception of the auction house which will profit from the sale, Phil has not identified a single authentication expert nor has he come forward with a single authentication report, excluding Ian's phony report. We have no idea of level of qualification of the experts or the scope of the supposed "authentications."
It is just like the last four times Phil has come to these pages to try to convince us to that this stuff is real.
Phil wants us to just take his word for it. Last time Phil asked us to take his word for it, he was singing the praises of Ian’s ham-handed fake authentication report, and insisting that it answered all of our questions and allayed all of our concerns. Incredibly, Phil hadn’t bothered to check its dubious authenticity out himself.
2. We have no idea what if anything Phil has told these unnamed experts about the serious concerns raised by all these documents. Phil claims to have told them everything, but the Links Article suggests that this probably isn't the case.
For example Phil told Links Magazine that this material was stored in a vault in a solicitors office for over 80 years, and that he had papers that prove this. This creates the false impression that all of this material is at least 80 years old and that it was out of reach of those who might alter or forge material, especially David Scott-Taylor. The claim is false, as Phil has admitted. The material was sometimes stored under Mum’s bed and thus easily accessible for Ian.
If Phil made this or similar false representations to the supposed experts, they may have provided their analysis based in part on this fiction.
3. Phil has a history of misrepresenting and exaggerating the extent of his research and the basis for his findings. For example when Phil first brought this story forward he repeatedly insisted the entire story came directly from the diaries. Then, when the story fell apart he admitted that he had never even seen the diary entries in question! See his Hubris thread, which reads an awful lot like this latest thread:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59182.0.htmlFor a more recent example, Phil has repeatedly claimed that he has definitive proof that the Grand Hotel was commonly called the Scores Hotel in 1901. Last week, he finally brought forward his supposed proof and again insisted that, "Just before and after the turn of the last century it was most definitely referred to as 'The Scores' locally." A bit of quick research by Niall, above, indicated that he misunderstood and misapplied the source information, and that it did not establish what he claimed it did. So Phil still has not come forward with any factual information supporting his assertion that the Grand Hotel was commonly called the Scores Hotel in 1901.
4. Phil hasn’t done his due diligence regarding the supposed David Scott-Taylor diaries. Even though he has been at this for at least a couple of years now, he still has never even seen the diaries in person, and has not bothered to arrange for their authentication.
Phil mentioned that he has not done so because of poor health, and I sympathize. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no acceptable excuse for Phil to try to publicly present this material as real until he has had the supposed diaries authenticated by respected experts. This is especially so given that Ian has already admitted to creating a false report to fraudulently induce the sale of material from this collection!
There is no pressing time constraint at work here. If his health prevents him from arranging for proper authentication, then the only responsible course would be to hold off on presenting the story until he has had a chance to exercise proper due diligence regarding this key component of the story and collection. Otherwise Phil is putting his faith in Ian Scott-Taylor, and asking others to do the same.
5. Despite Phil’s claims that he just wants to get to the truth, he has repeatedly failed to research and address the many valid concerns which indicate that this material might be fake, and he has steadfastly refused to provide answers to even the simplest an most straight-forward questions about David Scott-Taylor’s biographical information. The answers to these questions would allow others (and Phil) to verify the story or refute the story. Yet Phil refuses to answer.
For example, Phil has insisted that he and Ian have diaries from virtually every day of David Scott-Taylor's adult life. Yet Phil will not provide even the simplest and most straight forward biographical information. Among other things, Phil has refused identify:
- The name of David Scott-Taylor's first wife.
- The name of David Scott-Taylor's children from his first marriage.
- The location and address of David Scott-Taylor's residences during his adult life.
- The golf and rugby clubs to which he belonged and the dates of his memberships.
- His military ID number, or at least the places he was stationed and the ships on which he served.
If the David Scott-Taylor diaries are real, then all this information should be easy enough to provide, and much of it would be easily verifiable. Yet Phil refuses to provide any of it. He doesn’t seem to want to know.
If Phil is really interested in getting to the truth of this matter, then why is Phil unwilling to allow us to vet David Scott-Taylor’s biographical information?
6. Virtually nothing from the David Scott-Taylor story/diaries has checked out thus far. To give just two related examples, David Scott-Taylor was not a Naval Officer or even a doctor in 1901, and he certainly was not in Queen Victoria's chambers caring for the Queen beside her deathbed. These are details that were supposed to have come straight from the diaries, yet they are pure fiction.
7. Phil’s story keeps changing.
8. The Scores Hotel did not exist in 1901.
9. The Scores Hotel letterhead did not exist in 1901.
10. Tillinghast was not even in Scotland in May 1901.
11. Phil has not explained what happened to the 'thank you' note supposedly written by Tillinghast on "Scores Hotel letterhead” on May 12, 1901.
12. For these reasons (and many others) the supposed Tillinghast Road Hole drawing appears to be a blatant and careless forgery, as is the supposed note on Scores Hotel letterhead.
13. The Redan drawing appears to a perfect trace of a later hole plan, and contains features different than what existed in 1898.
14. The drawing of Augusta’s 13th hole is inconsistent with MacKenzie drawings from the same time period, and appears to be based on an “as built” drawing from 1933. It contains property features (such as the property line) which were not on MacKenzie’s contemporaneous drawings and its orientation on the page matches that of the 1933 as-built drawing, not the early drawings.
15. MacKenzie did not create individual hole drawings of the holes at ANGC.
16. The supposed diary entries and letters contain phrases which were not in use at the time the documents were supposedly created.
17. The details shown on the early drawings are not period appropriate.
18. Ian Scott-Taylor is a con artist who has already admitted to faking an authentication report, and is the only source for all this material.
That is just off the top of my head. What did I miss?
(I'd ask Phil to address this stuff, but he's already indicated that he will not answer my questions. So much for his statements about how it is "extremely important that the truth about [the collection] be established once and for all time." You'd think that if it were so important to get to the truth, then Phil would be willing to consider and explore the questions and concerns raised by one his critics, especially given that my track records is pretty solid regarding this issue. Phil apparently doesn't mind trying to sell this stuff for an admitted con artist and liar, but he won't answer a few simple questions aimed at bringing out the whole truth. Go figure.)