[Ulrich Mayring]

I also believe that the question "why would forgers go to the trouble of doing do this or that" is not a good question. First of all, it is an open question, meaning that it cannot be answered definitely. It does not ask for facts, but for feelings, motivations etc. which you can never ascertain.

Second, it is irrelevant to the issue. Dealing with that question might explain why someone develops a hunch as to the authenticity of the items. But someone's hunch or trust is not the question to be discussed and frankly, most people would not find it very interesting either.

If you must ask open questions or want to establish or disestablish trust, then the only person currently available to speak to is Phil Young. It would be in his own interest to go public with the material, especially since he said to the owner that he reserves the right to do with the stuff whatever he chooses to.

So unlike the first episode, Phil Young now is not bound by any unnamed solicitors or personal promises. He has the goods and the means to deliver them.

Ulrich

[John Sabino]

Green Jacket Auctions new auction just went live. I don't see the Mackenzie documents for sale, I guess they found a well-capitalized disciple of PT Barnum to buy them privately?


They do have the Augusta National entrance sign for sale, $17,000 and counting.

[Adam Lawrence]

Look, it seems to me that there is one key issue to be addressed here, and that is that the back story for these documents that we have been told over a period of a couple of years CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE. I don't think this is in any way controversial; there are simply too many holes, errors, inaccuracies etc.


Now, given the problems with the back story, who could accept the drawings as real without some kind of further explanation?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can we at least see all the materials, for example the purported letter dated Oct 7, 1931? EDIT: Oct 12, 1931 (sorry for the typo)

[Anthony Gholz]

To All:


Just as a matter of clarification, my hard copy issue of Links has not come as yet.  So I have been relegated to reading the article on-line.  I only see the two Augusta National drawings posted.  Isn't that the extant of the conversation at this moment? 


Ie the Tillie drawings aren't for sale on GJA.  Have I got that straight?


Thanks.
Tony

[Duncan Cheslett]

Look, it seems to me that there is one key issue to be addressed here, and that is that the back story for these documents that we have been told over a period of a couple of years CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE. I don't think this is in any way controversial; there are simply too many holes, errors, inaccuracies etc.


Now, given the problems with the back story, who could accept the drawings as real without some kind of further explanation?

This is exactly what I was getting at in my previous post. The MacKenzie drawings had already been largely authenticated before the "back story" came to light.

The dodgy back story clearly casts doubt on the aforementioned authentication. Without it the drawings would have doubtless  been sold long before now.

So why was the fake back story ever offered up?

It doesn't make sense.

[DMoriarty]

The MacKenzie drawings had already been largely authenticated before the "back story" came to light.

Duncan, 
What makes you think that the MacKenzie drawings had already been authenticated?  If your answer in any way relies upon representations from Phil and/or Ian, might I suggest you reconsider the source?

[Gib_Papazian]

Phil,

There is absolutely no reason not to cough up the documentation at this point. In fact, if you want your mysterious friend Ian to maximize his ROI, you do not want a bunch of intellectuals catapulting feces at your assertions. Potential buyers are bound to read it and IT WILL TRUNCATE THE PERCEIVED VALUE OF THE ITEMS AT AUCTION.

Just so you know, my father was an extremely experienced art buyer at auction and I learned quite a bit over the many years. When you’re buying and selling Rockwells, Morans and Sargents, you better know your shit. If somebody had asserted one of those pieces were faked, when the gavel went down, the number would have been less than half.

The REAL buyers are not going to take five or six figure flier on an auction lot with half the intelligentsia shrieking fraud and foul all over the internet. If your findings are legit, it is grossly to your advantage to shut everybody up and lay your cards on the table. Otherwise, there was no reason to start a thread in the Discussion Group.

Why don’t you go to the USGA (or a guy like David Normoyle) and pay them to authenticate everything? That way, you get your tattered reputation restored and can do the “I told you so dance” all the way to the bank. If that stuff gets sold privately - without the authentication documents made public - you are going to carry the Scarlet Letter forever and ever.

Now, what kind of idiot - who writes golf history books for a living - would willingly subject himself to humiliation and derision? Not good for business - and if SFGC and Michael Berkerich get wind of it, your ass is grass. I don’t think you’re fully understanding the influence the GCA Treehouse plays in the golf world.

I’ve read all your plaintive recitations of knightly honor, probity and scrupulous honesty. All well and good Sir Phil, but it is all bullshit until you lay the cards on the table and gather up the chips. I’ve gone out of my way to defend your ass - even though I was really skeptical after our dinner with Neal.

My email box has been peppered with close friends in four countries, begging me to stop making a fool of myself by publicly giving you the benefit of the doubt. You can go from goat to hero in exactly one day. Just show everybody the goods - it matters not who sees the evidence because if true, it will drastically increase the value of the items.

If, however, you’re a fraud, desperately trying to resurrect a debunked fish story with a bunch of expert anglers, then you deserve the tar & feathering.

Take my advice, man-up with the goods or go the fuck away.


Selah.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like a few of you, I got a few emails from Phil detailing his authentication process, but he asked me not to share and I have since deleted them to assure that I don't (my promise kept!) 

I don't recall the exact reasons he didn't want them shared, but understand Gib's frustrations.  It seems like you are asking for trouble if you bring out these documents and assertions of authenticity without the backup documents to really prove it, or at least let others vet it, whether they have any "right" to do so or not.  Seems like it all ought to come out at the same time.

[MCirba]

With great trepidation I'd ask one simple question that has always confused me regarding this entire matter.   I don't intend to engage in arguments or debate here but like a caller to a talk show, will simply ask, hang up, and then listen to any and all responses.  Thanks in advance.

I get the skepticism over supposed Tillinghast Road Hole and Redan drawings and Mackenzie ANGC drawings where something of a template existed prior for a forger to use;   however, what template(s) ever existed to draw all eighteen individual holes at Riviera in what looks to be the hand of The Good Doctor, and ostensibly signed in his penmanship as well?

I've seen them, and if they're forgeries, they are certainly expert forgeries.   Anyone else see them?

[Duncan Cheslett]

The MacKenzie drawings had already been largely authenticated before the "back story" came to light.

Duncan, 
What makes you think that the MacKenzie drawings had already been authenticated?  If your answer in any way relies upon representations from Phil and/or Ian, might I suggest you reconsider the source?

David,

Nothing to do with Phil or Ian.

Neil Crafter assured me back in 2014 when the story of the Tillinghurst sketches first broke that he had seen the MacKenzie drawings and that there was no question that they were genuine.

I don't suppose that there is anyone in the world better qualified to authenticate MacKenzie drawings than Neil Crafter.

[Ulrich Mayring]

From the Green Jacket Auction House's website:

This Green Jacket also has a tag from the famous (but long-defunct)  Cullum's Department Store in Augusta, which matches the Cullum's-Hart, Schaffner & Marx tag on the Green Jacket produced for 1957 Masters Champion Doug Ford in early 1958.

This is how an Auction House would say: "We have no idea who this green jacket belonged to, but we want you to believe it's Doug Ford's and have priced it accordingly."

It could also mean: "We're pretty sure it's Doug Ford's, after all he consigned it to us, but we want to cover our asses, just in case Doug Ford turns out to be a scoundrel."

As you can see, auction houses are extremely cautious - at least the reputable ones. But they are not above dealing out fantasies, if they think they can get away with it.

Ulrich

[Jeff_Brauer]

The MacKenzie drawings had already been largely authenticated before the "back story" came to light.

Duncan, 
What makes you think that the MacKenzie drawings had already been authenticated?  If your answer in any way relies upon representations from Phil and/or Ian, might I suggest you reconsider the source?

David,

Nothing to do with Phil or Ian.

Neil Crafter assured me back in 2014 when the story of the Tillinghurst sketches first broke that he had seen the MacKenzie drawings and that there was no question that they were genuine.

I don't suppose that there is anyone in the world better qualified to authenticate MacKenzie drawings than Neil Crafter.

Phil did tell me he had submitted to Neil, and a few other sources, who all believed they were authentic.  That was what prompted my question about just what would it take to judge something like that authentic?  A few gca who knew Mac confirming it?  Handwriting on the signatures?  etc. etc. etc.

I guess I should ask under general standards and golfclubatlas.com standards, because I think standards around here appear to be higher in some quarters.......but whenever we have these historical discussions, the standard of proof is even difficult to agree on, much less whatever was in question.

[Andy Stamm]

From the Green Jacket Auction House's website:

This Green Jacket also has a tag from the famous (but long-defunct)  Cullum's Department Store in Augusta, which matches the Cullum's-Hart, Schaffner & Marx tag on the Green Jacket produced for 1957 Masters Champion Doug Ford in early 1958.

This is how an Auction House would say: "We have no idea who this green jacket belonged to, but we want you to believe it's Doug Ford's and have priced it accordingly."

It could also mean: "We're pretty sure it's Doug Ford's, after all he consigned it to us, but we want to cover our asses, just in case Doug Ford turns out to be a scoundrel."

As you can see, auction houses are extremely cautious - at least the reputable ones. But they are not above dealing out fantasies, if they think they can get away with it.

Ulrich

I don't think you have that right. They sold Ford's jacket a few years ago with a letter from Ford. They're saying this jacket has the same tags and therefore must have been produced around the same time. They're not inferring anything about for whom it was made.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Duncan.  But I believe the "backstory" (at least the first version) was already being told before Neil and various others reviewed the images. 

And with all due respect to Neil, he is neither a trained handwriting expert nor an experienced and reputable forensic scientist. So I am having trouble understanding how Neil is a person most qualified to pronounce that there was, as you say, "no question" that the drawings were genuine. I'm not even sure a forensic scientist would or could make such an unequivocal pronouncement in this type of situation. It isn't an exact science, and so pronouncements of exact certainty are inherently suspicious.  True forensic scientists understand that there are almost always varying degrees of confidence (and doubt) with this sort of analysis and will be more equivocal in their pronouncements.

Don't get me wrong.  I know that Neil is familiar with MacKenzie's work and I don't doubt that he could pick out a bad MacKenzie forgery.  But could he distinguish between a genuine MacKenzie original and a really good forgery?  That is much less certain.

While Neil looked at the drawings and thought they looked real, other "experts" have looked the drawings and wanted nothing to do with them.  There is more than a little subjectivity in the endeavor.

On a related topic, here is something you wrote back on July 31, 2014:

I received today an email from Neil Crafter assuring me that the Scott-Thomas journal and the signed Tillinghust plan are indeed genuine and that he has "no doubts as to their authenticity and veracity."

How could Neil possibly know that both the journal/diary and the Tillinghast plan were authentic? How could he say that, as you put it, there were "no doubts" as to the authenticity and veracity of either?

Is he an expert on Tillinghast's style and handwriting, as well, and did he submit a report on the Tillinghast drawings?

Given that not even Phil has ever even seen the actual diaries, how could Neil unequivocally vouch for their "authenticity and veracity?"

[Ulrich Mayring]

Andy,

that is exactly my point, they are not saying it is Ford's jacket and wisely so, because it isn't. But they are saying this jacket looks exactly like the one that was made for Ford and it was made at that time.

They are not giving the information that you did, that they sold Ford's jacket a few years ago and that this isn't his jacket, but another one from the same time and of the same make. They are, in fact, leaving all sorts of possibilities open including that this could indeed be Ford's jacket coming around again.

I am sure they are in a position, where they could deny a number of intriguing possibilities, but they choose not to. That is typical of auction houses. They stick to the truth, but put it in words that create fantasies. I once saw a bunch of sketches by Victor Hugo. They did not state that this is not THE Victor Hugo, but another man of the same name. But they put the sketches up for a price that some unknown artist would never fetch.

Ulrich

[Andy Stamm]

Andy,

that is exactly my point, they are not saying it is Ford's jacket and wisely so, because it isn't. But they are saying this jacket looks exactly like the one that was made for Ford and it was made at that time.

They are not giving the information that you did, that they sold Ford's jacket a few years ago and that this isn't his jacket, but another one from the same time and of the same make. They are, in fact, leaving all sorts of possibilities open including that this could indeed be Ford's jacket coming around again.

I am sure they are in a position, where they could deny a number of intriguing possibilities, but they choose not to. That is typical of auction houses. They stick to the truth, but put it in words that create fantasies. I once saw a bunch of sketches by Victor Hugo. They did not state that this is not THE Victor Hugo, but another man of the same name. But they put the sketches up for a price that some unknown artist would never fetch.

Ulrich

Fair enough. I read it as basically their saying the have a jacket, they don't know whose, but they have an idea of a date and here's why. I don't really think anyone with the money and interest in acquiring the jacket would not know about the Ford sale before bidding, so if your reading is correct, it's especially unlikely to actually fool anyone. In fact I think mentioning the Ford jacket is pretty much their saying that this isn't that jacket because it's whereabouts are essentially known. Of course if the intent was to deceive, it is a dubious practice regardless of its efficacy. But I don't think that reading is accurate.

[Tom_Doak]

Just last year, Green Jacket Auctions asked me to authenticate an original copy of The Confidential Guide ... presumably one of the original 40.  They sent me photocopies of several pages, and I could authenticate that it was a copy of the original work.  But I told them I couldn't tell whether it was actually one of the original 40, or a photocopy.  It was not numbered as __ of 40, as the originals all were [unless I forgot to number one somehow], and it didn't have my signature on it, and I thought I'd signed them all.  So, it could well have been someone making a copy of one of the original books and auctioning it off as the original !


It's a weird world we live in.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Presumably they couldn't then sell it as "authenticated by Tom Doak". But I have a hunch they also didn't sell it as "not authenticated by Tom Doak", which they were perfectly entitled to do in the interest of full disclosure

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a private buyer and they told him Tom looked at it and said ok.

Ulrich

[David_Tepper]

F For Fake, an Orson Welles documentary film, is playing on the Turner Classic Movie channel this evening.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072962/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[Duncan Cheslett]

F For Fake, an Orson Welles documentary film, is playing on the Turner Classic Movie channel this evening.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072962/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Thanks Duncan.  But I believe the "backstory" (at least the first version) was already being told before Neil and various others reviewed the images. 

And with all due respect to Neil, he is neither a trained handwriting expert nor an experienced and reputable forensic scientist. So I am having trouble understanding how Neil is a person most qualified to pronounce that there was, as you say, "no question" that the drawings were genuine. I'm not even sure a forensic scientist would or could make such an unequivocal pronouncement in this type of situation. It isn't an exact science, and so pronouncements of exact certainty are inherently suspicious.  True forensic scientists understand that there are almost always varying degrees of confidence (and doubt) with this sort of analysis and will be more equivocal in their pronouncements.

Don't get me wrong.  I know that Neil is familiar with MacKenzie's work and I don't doubt that he could pick out a bad MacKenzie forgery.  But could he distinguish between a genuine MacKenzie original and a really good forgery?  That is much less certain.

While Neil looked at the drawings and thought they looked real, other "experts" have looked the drawings and wanted nothing to do with them.  There is more than a little subjectivity in the endeavor.

On a related topic, here is something you wrote back on July 31, 2014:

I received today an email from Neil Crafter assuring me that the Scott-Thomas journal and the signed Tillinghust plan are indeed genuine and that he has "no doubts as to their authenticity and veracity."

How could Neil possibly know that both the journal/diary and the Tillinghast plan were authentic? How could he say that, as you put it, there were "no doubts" as to the authenticity and veracity of either?

Is he an expert on Tillinghast's style and handwriting, as well, and did he submit a report on the Tillinghast drawings?

Given that not even Phil has ever even seen the actual diaries, how could Neil unequivocally vouch for their "authenticity and veracity?"

David,

This is the relevant passage from the email I received from Neil Crafter on 31.7.14;

Duncan

Ian has done nothing but the right thing in my opinion in allowing the release of certain documents from his family's archives. These are not his own personal property, they belong to his family collectively, and since his mother's death a couple of months ago, all these documents are now subject to a probate process. I have seen evidence that the documents have been kept securely by solicitors since DST's untimely death in 1933 at the age of 59. While I haven't seen anywhere near all the material I have seen a great deal more than has been released here, and I have no doubts as to their authenticity and veracity. *
   
*My emphasis.


And from his email of 29.10.14 following the disclosure that IST had fabricated the authentication report;

My involvement with this was in looking at a set of 18 hole plans apparently drawn by Mackenzie for Riviera. They certainly appeared genuine to me based upon the numerous Mac plans I have seen over the years, and I said so. They certainly did not appear to be a “patently ridiculous load of bollocks” as you say in a non-gloating kind of way.

Obviously I am very disappointed, upset and saddened that Ian fabricated the report, which naturally casts a grim shadow over all this material, the Riviera drawings included. What material is genuine and what material is not is now mixed up in a murky soup. I find it difficult to believe that these Mac plans plus the two from Augusta that I have seen are forged, and while that possibility has always been there, it is perhaps more prominent now. Anyway, there will be more fall-out on this to come no doubt.


It should be noted that my phrase  “a patently ridiculous load of bollocks” referred specifically to the excepts from the DST journals and the Tillinghurst sketches to which we had all been privy, and not the MacKenzie drawings about which until that point in time I knew nothing.

In the first email Neil refers to having seen a great deal more material than that then in the public domain, and having no doubts to its "authenticity and veracity". This would have had to have been some time before the original story broke on GCA.

In the second email he expands on what some of that material was; the MacKenzie drawings of Riviera.

He then goes on to back-track slightly regarding the possibility that the Riviera drawings were fake. It is clear however, that at that time at least he still believed much of the material to be genuine. What his view is now I do not know.

It is clear to me that if the MacKenzie drawings had in mid 2014 quietly been released onto the market with a very concise back-story they would probably have changed hands for a considerable sum without controversy. Instead, a convoluted story including what were clearly faked Tillinghurst sketches and bogus journals was released.

There would be a rather delicious irony in all this if the MacKenzie drawings are in fact genuine, but unsaleable because of the doubts to their authenticity caused through greed, dishonesty, and stupidity...

[Sven Nilsen]

Duncan:


Would you agree there is a wide gap between "believing something to be genuine" and "authenticating it."


Sven

[John_Cullum]

David,

This is the relevant passage from the email I received from Neil Crafter on 31.7.14;

Duncan

These are not his own personal property, they belong to his family collectively, and since his mother's death a couple of months ago, all these documents are now subject to a probate process. I have seen evidence that the documents have been kept securely by solicitors since DST's untimely death in 1933 at the age of 59.

If he's relying on that self-serving letter supposedly drafted by the solicitor, he's not capable of authenticating anything.

[Rich Goodale]

Let's not forget that I S-T is a self-identified artist.


http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/ian-scotttaylor.html

[Adam Lawrence]

The MacKenzie drawings had already been largely authenticated before the "back story" came to light.

Duncan, 
What makes you think that the MacKenzie drawings had already been authenticated?  If your answer in any way relies upon representations from Phil and/or Ian, might I suggest you reconsider the source?

David,

Nothing to do with Phil or Ian.

Neil Crafter assured me back in 2014 when the story of the Tillinghurst sketches first broke that he had seen the MacKenzie drawings and that there was no question that they were genuine.

I don't suppose that there is anyone in the world better qualified to authenticate MacKenzie drawings than Neil Crafter.

Neil 'authenticated' those drawings without ever seeing the originals.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()