[John Kavanaugh]

Gentlemen,

Brother Neal and I had dinner with Phil a couple years ago when he was here doing the club history for SFGC. We took a close look at all sorts of drawings, maps and documentation - including what to me is the absolute Holy Grail: Pieces of the original Raynor plans for Cypress Point.

Now, we were both somewhat skeptical, but I've got to admit - even for as a guy who studied for years at the feet of the Great Bahto - the stuff appeared legitimate.

The story of the Barrister in Scotland or Wales or wherever seemed a bit fishy, but stranger things have happened and I took him on his word that everything had been authenticated.

On the face of it (before I queried Sean Tully), the findings were extremely exciting and I guess I really wanted to believe somebody had found the Raynor plans - if only to prove the routing was mostly Raynor, not MacKenzie.

However, in the end, the entire Barrister story exploded into a million pieces and an otherwise fine gentleman got duped by a criminal forger who ought to be keel-hauled.

Now, here is the rub: Just because he got one thing wrong, does not mean that Phil got everything wrong.

Putting aside his congenital liberalism and breathless perseverations about Domer football, Tommy N. and I don't disagree about much. However, I have to spank my blood brother here and throw a flag for unnecessary roughness.

Phil Young is not a piece of shit, he is not a criminal and he did not intentionally mislead everybody about this MacKenzie/Morris/whoever else was there meeting and drawings. The fact this otherwise kind, agreeable guy has been publicly disemboweled as if he sodomized an infant is absolutely over-the-fucking-top.

Further, even if every single bit of his research turned out to have been provided by a skilled forger, Phil clearly did not assert the veracity of these documents with malicious intent.

You know why kiddies? Because somebody intentionally trying to put one over on the golf establishment would keep his research as far away from this Discussion Group as possible.

Let's face it, not only is the average I.Q. on this board incredibly high, but the Treehouse bar is three deep with erudite golf historians on virtually every imaginable subject.

Do you think Phil Young (or anybody) would be stupid enough to intentionally allow THIS group of geniuses scrutinize a set of forgeries and incomplete research - knowing every micron would instantly be subjected to a high speed crash test?

My guess - and it is only a guess - is that Phil may be right. We might be incorrectly assuming just because one of his sources turned out to be a clever liar, that EVERYTHING he has set forth is patently false.

Did it ever occur to anybody the rest of his research from different sources might have some merit? Do we need to insult this man with such hateful vehemence?

How stupid are the naysayers going to feel if it turns out Phil Young stumbled across some real gems?       

All that said, my strong suggestion would be that Phil sits down with my friend David Normoyle and (if he's willing) let him tear into the research and ascertain whether it is another wild goose chase. David is one of the sharpest cats I know and a bulletproof intellect in terms of verifiable research.

Maybe Phil is afraid to do it. Maybe he does not really want to know the truth - but if my name had been dragged in the sewer around here, I'd damn well seek out the top researchers to find out whether I was given (just) one catastrophic bum steer, or if the entire sum of my writing and research is a steaming pile of hallucinatory twaddle.   
       



   

If I'm trolling Gib just strapped on a 500 hp Evinrude.

[Keith OHalloran]

Gentlemen,

Brother Neal and I had dinner with Phil a couple years ago when he was here doing the club history for SFGC. We took a close look at all sorts of drawings, maps and documentation - including what to me is the absolute Holy Grail: Pieces of the original Raynor plans for Cypress Point.

Now, we were both somewhat skeptical, but I've got to admit - even for as a guy who studied for years at the feet of the Great Bahto - the stuff appeared legitimate.

The story of the Barrister in Scotland or Wales or wherever seemed a bit fishy, but stranger things have happened and I took him on his word that everything had been authenticated.

On the face of it (before I queried Sean Tully), the findings were extremely exciting and I guess I really wanted to believe somebody had found the Raynor plans - if only to prove the routing was mostly Raynor, not MacKenzie.

However, in the end, the entire Barrister story exploded into a million pieces and an otherwise fine gentleman got duped by a criminal forger who ought to be keel-hauled.

Now, here is the rub: Just because he got one thing wrong, does not mean that Phil got everything wrong.

Putting aside his congenital liberalism and breathless perseverations about Domer football, Tommy N. and I don't disagree about much. However, I have to spank my blood brother here and throw a flag for unnecessary roughness.

Phil Young is not a piece of shit, he is not a criminal and he did not intentionally mislead everybody about this MacKenzie/Morris/whoever else was there meeting and drawings. The fact this otherwise kind, agreeable guy has been publicly disemboweled as if he sodomized an infant is absolutely over-the-fucking-top.

Further, even if every single bit of his research turned out to have been provided by a skilled forger, Phil clearly did not assert the veracity of these documents with malicious intent.

You know why kiddies? Because somebody intentionally trying to put one over on the golf establishment would keep his research as far away from this Discussion Group as possible.

Let's face it, not only is the average I.Q. on this board incredibly high, but the Treehouse bar is three deep with erudite golf historians on virtually every imaginable subject.

Do you think Phil Young (or anybody) would be stupid enough to intentionally allow THIS group of geniuses scrutinize a set of forgeries and incomplete research - knowing every micron would instantly be subjected to a high speed crash test?

My guess - and it is only a guess - is that Phil may be right. We might be incorrectly assuming just because one of his sources turned out to be a clever liar, that EVERYTHING he has set forth is patently false.

Did it ever occur to anybody the rest of his research from different sources might have some merit? Do we need to insult this man with such hateful vehemence?

How stupid are the naysayers going to feel if it turns out Phil Young stumbled across some real gems?       

All that said, my strong suggestion would be that Phil sits down with my friend David Normoyle and (if he's willing) let him tear into the research and ascertain whether it is another wild goose chase. David is one of the sharpest cats I know and a bulletproof intellect in terms of verifiable research.

Maybe Phil is afraid to do it. Maybe he does not really want to know the truth - but if my name had been dragged in the sewer around here, I'd damn well seek out the top researchers to find out whether I was given (just) one catastrophic bum steer, or if the entire sum of my writing and research is a steaming pile of hallucinatory twaddle.   
       



   

If I'm trolling Gib just strapped on a 500 hp Evinrude.

Well, they say it takes one to know one.

[Marty Bonnar]

Gib,
Do just one thing. Show your friend the two versions of the Redan drawing. If he still thinks this is real after that, he's as much of a Phool as Phil.
Regards,
Martin.

[Tom_Doak]

Brother Neal and I had dinner with Phil a couple years ago when he was here doing the club history for SFGC. We took a close look at all sorts of drawings, maps and documentation - including what to me is the absolute Holy Grail: Pieces of the original Raynor plans for Cypress Point.

I was trying to explain this whole controversy to a friend who hadn't heard about it the other day, and I said I was surprised that the original Raynor plans for Cypress Point hadn't been offered up yet, because it was the only piece of the Holy Grail that hadn't been offered.  So, of course, "pieces" of it had been, but only to the guy who would want to see it the most.  Quelle surprise!

[DMoriarty]

Gib, I’ve followed this controversy pretty closely, and I’ve got to tell you, you’ve lost me in your post above. Phil has gotten much more wrong than just “one thing” and Ian is still the only "source" for both the story and artwork.

As for the “Barrister story,” so far as I know Phil is still standing behind Ian’s various barrister/solicitor stories.  Which one do you think Phil got wrong? And what about everything else that Phil has gotten wrong?  Like Martin, I suspect your view would change if you were more familiar with the details.

As for your mens rea discussion, perhaps it is best saved for different setting. At this point Phil's state of mind doesn’t matter to me.  Whether or not intentional, Phil has repeatedly mislead us from the very beginning. And whatever his original intention, at this point he is not willing to consider leads, theories, and facts which potentially cut against Ian’s story. Even if we accept that Phil is pure of heart, he has proven he cannot be trusted to thoroughly and accurately investigate, analyze, and present this information.

As for your admonition about how the “naysayers” will feel “stupid” if this stuff turns out to be real, it brought me back to the very beginning of my involvement in this whole fiasco.
  -  In mid-July 2014, I sent Phil a PM to let him know that I couldn’t verify that Tillinghast was in St. Andrews in early May 1901, and asking him if he had any independent confirmation of the trip.  I hadn’t yet shared my thoughts with anyone but Phil.
  -  Later that same day,  you emailed me to warn me “be careful who you call out,” because those who were questioning the authenticity of this material would end up in egg dripping off their noses. My response to your admonition now is the same as it was then:

“These are the types of questions that need be asked, and if asking them leaves me with egg on my face, then so be it.”

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,

Did I start a thread the next morning thumbing my nose at you and Shac?

"Neener-neener-neener, so-called 'Mackenzie experts,' looks like I was right all along and it was Raynor who routed Cypress Point." 

Uh, no. I did not. Because I know better than to jump headlong into conclusions in the Treehouse lounge.

That does not change my opinion: Not EVERYTHING Phil has dug up is necessarily a fake. Has anybody really thought about the sheer amount of work necessary to forge that many documents? In the big picture, these are incredibly arcane subjects - of interest to only a tiny percentage of the golf populace.

It is difficult for me to believe a really skilled forger would spend the time and energy (months likely) to churn out that many documents, knowing they would be scrutinized with microscopes and tweezers by a bunch of geniuses in seven countries.

Certainly not Phil Young. Why would you stick your dick into a Chinese finger trap unless you were absolutely certain you had the goods? The answer is, you would not. If there was malicious intent kiddies, Phil would have quietly stood by while the documents were sold - and taken a piece of the action.

And for all of you nasty fucks out there, who seem to take delight in kicking this man while he's down, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. That includes the Treehouse Monarch - one of my closest friends on the planet.

Phil has a lot more challenges to deal with than his health - and having to deal with a similar issue, I am extremely sympathetic to his plight.

Think about how many people on this board who have been provided a good turn - or forgiven for doing something incredibly stupid.

It has been like watching the scene in 2001, when all the apes ganged up on the one, clubbing it to death. 

You pricks ought to look in the mirror (for a change) before you defecate on a guy doing his best.




 


 

[Gib_Papazian]

And David, I stand by what I wrote. Did I say NOT to question the veracity of Phil's findings? Nope. Did I assert he was absolutely correct? No.

What I meant, Counselor, is to be careful about PUBLICLY calling somebody out before you are 100% certain of the facts. And even then, it is bad form - unless you are sure the culprit is out & out running a hustle.

I've no clue whether everything he has dug up is true or not, but the vicious way it has been handled here among the intelligentsia has been mean-spirited and uncomfortably close to the lunacy you got sucked into with that (deleted in the interest of good taste) Wayne Morrison and TE Paul. 

[DMoriarty]

Gib,  You are painting with much to wide a brush.  If you want to call out individuals for perceived bad behavior, go for it.  But many of the posts above pose reasonable questions and bring up compelling issues, and despite Phil's representation that he would address reasonable questions, he has not. Just like the previous three or four times he has come here to try and sell this story. Whatever his intentions, Phil is obviously not interested in considering anything that might cast doubt on Ian's story.

As for your email to me back in 2014 this probably isn't the proper forum to discuss it, but you may want to go back and look.

[Gib_Papazian]

David,

Okay, I am calling out people who mistreated Phil.

Phil,

I know you are reading this. Now, cut the shit and cough up the goods - or admit you're a fraud. You started this thread, so man-up or I'll help toss your ass out the Treehouse window.

And if I find out you KNEW all that stuff you showed me and Neal was fake . . . . . . . well, best of luck

[David Amarnek]

Mr. Papazian,
Are you 100% certain Wayne Morrison (I'm not sure if you meant to include Tom Paul, but if you did, the same holds true) is a twat? If not, perhaps you should abide by your own advice to David Moriarty.  I know them both quite well and I could think of many adjectives to describe them, but twat would not be one of those.
Demeaning behavior on this site, in my mind, should be avoided...it's just not worth it!
David

[Gib_Papazian]

Hi David,

If I thought Tom Paul was a (deleted in the interest of good taste), then I would have written it. You might have noticed, but I am perfectly capable of expressing myself, having been a published golf writer for many years.

Mr. Morrison took it upon himself on several occasions to single me out and clutter my PM box with snide, nasty obnoxious insults. Evidently, he believes having a club tie with a Wicker Basket entitles him to sneer and belittle the hoi polloi whose blood is not blue enough to suit his Mainline pedigree.

Your friend would do well to remember those of us whose family came here through Ellis Island - and not in the first cabin on the Mayflower - actually work for a living and do not appreciate being looked down upon by a smug, pseudo-intellectual aristocrat.     

[David Amarnek]

Gib,
Well, you did educate me about your status as an experienced golf writer.  I must confess I was unaware of it prior to now, and that is sincerely not meant to be an insult.  I am just not very well versed in contemporary golf literature.  Additionally, thanks for your clarification re. Tom Paul not being a twat.
I have no comment regarding the rest of your reply, except to say that you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 
Best,
David

[Scott Warren]

.

[Duncan Cheslett]

It seems to have been firmly established that at least some of the material is fake.

What I don't understand is why certain material was faked. The Mackenzie sketches now under discussion were authenticated seemingly without controversy by respected experts long before the Tillinghurst drawings and the Scott-Taylor journals came to public attention.

They alone would have raised a lot of money. If they are genuine why the need to over-egg the pudding and potentially scupper the whole deal?

[Neil White]

They alone would have raised a lot of money. If they are genuine why the need to over-egg the pudding and potentially scupper the whole deal?

More ££££$$$$ I guess...

[Gib_Papazian]

Duncan,

"If they are genuine why the need to over-egg the pudding and potentially scupper the whole deal?"

Your response - using a classic turn of phrase uniquely Brit - is what has bothered me from the outset.

Why?

Why would a highly skilled forger take the time and effort to churn something out on an arcane subject of interest to only a tiny few? Why would Phil Young put forth forgeries to an audience who actually know how many squares of toilet paper Mackenzie or Tillie used in the bathroom - or not only which ships they sailed on, but the dates and cabin numbers?

And if in fact, some of the drawings have been authenticated, why (as you suggest) push it over the edge and blow up the entire hustle?

It would be like an art dealer finding an authentic Thomas Moran - worth a wheelbarrow of money - and then polluting the lot with a fake Rockwell. It just does not make sense to me.

With all due respect to my brother Shivas - who thinks and writes like a lawyer from Northwestern (for you Brits, that is like a degree from Cambridge) - the Bernie Madoff / Allen Stanford situation was far different.

Those two fucks were running a naked pyramid scheme - but on somewhat unsophisticated marks. Once the real experts began to vet their story and pull out the proctoscopes, the camera zoomed back to reveal a Hollywood set and the jig was up.

What Phil and Scott Taylor have done - if they are actual frauds - is the equivalent of concocting an elaborate financial shell game/Ponzi scheme, walk right into Goldman-Sachs and invite them to examine the model for their A-list investors - KNOWING that Price-Waterhouse Coopers was then going to drill down to the magma evaluating the books.

Boy-o-boy, if these guys have been running a hustle like that around here, they must have titanium nuts or so overcome with greed they've started to hallucinate.

My prediction: Once everything is sorted out, the truth will have been far stranger than we could have imagined.
     

 

[Keith OHalloran]

I hesitate to wade in here, but Madoff was not simply hustling unsophisticated marks. They were selling to sophisticated people who knew the returns were too good to be true, but decided not to ask. They had people joining golf clubs just to run in their circles and hope to be accepted a as a client. Perhaps Phil and IST were hopeful for the same reception here? Hopeful to find people so desperate to call the drawing real that they would refuse to ask the tough questions.

[Gib_Papazian]

Keith,

REALLY sophisticated investors are almost impossible to fool with "too good to be true" scams. I've sat there and watched my mother (absolute genius with numbers) roast people over hot coals just by asking a series of tough questions about their "once in a lifetime opportunity." The ones without the goods ran from the building like it was on fire.

The only people who got screwed by Madoff are the ones who didn't really want to look behind the curtain.   

[Keith OHalloran]

Keith,

REALLY sophisticated investors are almost impossible to fool with "too good to be true" scams. I've sat there and watched my mother (absolute genius with numbers) roast people over hot coals just by asking a series of tough questions about their "once in a lifetime opportunity." The ones without the goods ran from the building like it was on fire.

The only people who got screwed by Madoff are the ones who didn't really want to look behind the curtain.   

Yeah, I feel like thetis exactly what I said. Point is they were not swindling rubes, they were swindling people who were happy not to ask. Phil and IST may be trying to do the same. That is precisely why the tough questions need to be asked.

[RJ_Daley]

Not to get into the personalities yet again, but the last few posts are the essence.  It takes two sides to a scam who are wanting to get over on everyone else and not ask the hard or uncomfortable questions of, 'how legit is this' just show me the money.  And to some so-called collectors, it isn't just an investment to make money or garner something expensive, it is to buy validation or prestige.  There are folks with scads of money and more ambition or desire than sense to be known as a connoisseur of fine things in a particular fine arts field who would buy things of not much marketable currency, but suggests their eye for the fine objet d'art that they think make them special.  To a clever scammer and forger, those sort of people must be a real tasty delicacy.

[Sven Nilsen]

Gib:


Since Phil doesn't seem to want to do it, and seeing as you're waving his banner here, perhaps you could take a shot at answering the substantive questions asked earlier in the thread.


For starters, take a crack at this one:



The following question still lingers from the original discussion.  How does one explain the similarities between the 1901 Tillinghast sketch of the Redan and the 1912 surveyed map of the hole as portrayed in the overlay below?






All the best,


Sven

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can we see an image of the letter dated Oct 12, 1931?

[Gib_Papazian]

Sven,

I am not waving anybody's banner here - mostly agreeing with Shivas, actually.

But still, none of it makes sense to me. Why would a fraud come back for another ass-ripping here (of all places) when he could quietly sell his bogus drawings, pocket the dough and fade into the ether?

[Sven Nilsen]

Gib:


You've just asked one of the many, many questions associated with this saga.  The answer to this particular one lies in how the Links Magazine story was first mentioned here. 


This story has been lingering in the ether of GCA for a number of years now.  It was first billed to me a while back as a find so momentous it would make many prominent clubs rethink their roots.  But at its core, the course of events hasn't been about historical importance.  Its been about profiteering. 


Perhaps its just me, but I'd rather see all of these works displayed for public perusal and study (whether it was on this forum or elsewhere) instead of being privately shopped to a target market. 


I'd love for these finds to be real, as they appear to provide a wonderful opportunity to expand our base of knowledge in this field we all claim to appreciate.  However, the questions lingering around the entire course of events as well as the way those events have transpired have created a barrier to any faith in their veracity.


In all honesty, I might buy the "we wouldn't come here if we weren't certain" argument if there was a willingness to participate in substantive conversations about this material by certain players.  I haven't seen that happen at all since the first Tillie sketch graced these pages.


Sven

[David Kelly]

The gullibility of some people on this discussion board is utterly breathtaking.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()