Just in time for Masters’ week, LINKS Magazine will run a cover story in its Spring 2016 print issue titled “The Lost Drawings of Augusta National.” According to LINKS, the story unveils two long-lost ANGC drawings created by Alistair MacKenzie, both of which had supposedly been “locked in a vault” for over 80 years. The story also features one long-lost MacKenzie letter and quotes another, both supposedly locked in the same vault. The LINKS story also extensively quotes the supposed diaries of David Scott-Taylor. (The story available online at
http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/the-lost-drawings-of-augusta-nationalIn case you were wondering, the story’s author, James Frank, has confirmed that this is not an April Fools joke. Others might disagree.
As many of you know, others and I have conducted extensive research into the David Scott-Taylor story and the intertwined collection of golf related material, and have expressed serious reservations about the authenticity of both. I was thus disappointed to see that the LINKS story presented both the story and artwork uncritically, as if there were no legitimate or newsworthy questions as to authenticity.
I reached out to Mr. Frank to express my concerns, and Mr. Frank was kind enough to respond. His response referenced me to an email (to a golf writer) which included a statement by Phil Young. Phil’s statement raised even more questions and concerns, so I followed up with detailed comments about Phil’s representations. Mr. Frank's second response was cursory and dismissive, and left no doubt that our conversation was going nowhere. Nonetheless I did learn a few things in our exchange:
- Mr. Frank is good friends with Phil Young. He sometimes works with Phil, trusts him, and trusts that Phil has found experts who have sufficiently authenticated the drawings.
- Like Phil Young, Mr. Frank and LINKS have no real interest in considering any information which might cast a shadow over the authenticity of the drawings and related material.
- Phil Young has not been straight with Mr. Frank and LINKS.
Rather than try to address every single problem with the story and documents, I first concentrated on three discrete concerns about LINKS' exclusion of crucial information, as well as LINKS' inclusion in the article of false information and highly suspect suspect information:
1.
Why did LINKS Magazine fail to mention that Ian Scott-Taylor has admitted to having created a false authentication report in order to try to fraudulently induce potential buyers into purchasing this very same material?
Ian Scott-Taylor has admitted that he created a false authentication report in order to try to fraudulently induce potential buyers into purchasing items from this very same collection. Given that Ian Scott-Taylor is the sole source of every single item in the collection, I would think that, at the very least, the information about Ian's previous attempt to defraud potential purchasers would have been worth mentioning. (See
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59820.msg1410897.html#msg1410897)
Yet LINKS not only neglected to mention that Ian Scott-Taylor attempted to defraud potential purchasers of this very same material. LINKS also failed to mention any of the red flags associated with this collection. By only telling one side of the story, LINKS and Mr. Frank have whitewashed everything. LINKS has (figuratively) robbed potential purchasers and readers of the chance to decide for themselves about the authenticity of the material, and they may be helping Ian Scott-Taylor literally rob potential purchasers.
Mr. Frank did not see it that way. While he said he was “well aware of [Ian’s] forging a piece of authentication,” he nonetheless thought he’d seen “enough other pieces of provenance that the story is still worth telling.”
This doesn’t really make sense, does it? Of course he couldn’t rely on the phony report, but the phony authentication report is a strong indication that Ian is unreliable, dishonest, and deceitful, and it castes a dark shadow over everything Ian has provided as well as over the additional authentications. (Not only that, but Phil Young enthusiastically touted and marketed the false report, even though it was obviously suspect to many of us. Once again, as he has repeatedly with respect to this collection, Phil failed to diligently vet the information on which he relies. That ought to have raised questions about Phil Young's willingness and/or ability to research and analyze this material.)
Mr. Frank also acknowledged that he “purposely left Ian out of the story as much as possible due to his “personal issues.” He did not elaborate on these “personal issues” and I still have no idea why LINKS would exclude the crucial information of Ian’s admitted fraud. Similarly Phil is also claiming to have somehow left Ian out of this go-around.
But it is impossible to leave Ian out.
Ian is the only source for entire David Scott-Taylor story/collection. Everything came directly from Ian and only Ian. The only parts LINKS is leaving out are the overwhelming evidence of Ian Scott-Taylor’s fraud, and the highly suspect nature of
everything Ian has provided.
I asked Mr. Frank:
Why not present the whole story and let the readers decide whether or not to trust that the drawings or real, or not? Why not at least make it clear that there is a substantial controversy surrounding Ian Scott-Taylor and his collection?
Mr. Frank did not answer, but the answer seems readily apparent. Mr. Frank and LINKS are trying to protect Phil Young (who is a close friend of Mr. Frank) by presenting the story in the best possible light for Phil and Ian, even if it means excluding crucial information about Ian’s fraudulent behavior, and thus duping the readers into believing that the Ian Scott-Taylor’s story checks out. I guess I understand Mr. Frank’s desire to trust and protect his friend Phil, but the reality is LINKS is trusting Ian Scott-Taylor, and aiding Ian in his continuing fraudulent scheme.
It is careless and unscrupulous for LINKS to whitewash the story, and LINKS has no reasonable justification for so doing.
2.
Why is LINKS Magazine quoting unauthenticated diary entries supplied by Ian Scott-Taylor, a known Con Artist?
While both LINKS and Phil Young insist that they have left Ian out of the story, they are relying on him as much as ever. Everything came from Ian. For example the LINKS story included extensive quotes from the supposed David Scott-Taylor diaries, as provided by Ian Scott-Taylor. Yet, the ‘diaries’ have never been authenticated by any reputable expert anywhere, excluding (of course) Ian's phony authentication report.
In fact, Phil Young has never even seen the supposed collection of diaries in person. Ian sends pictures and/or transcripts of supposed diary entries to Phil, and Phil treats them as authentic, despite the source. Here is what Phil recently wrote about the diaries:
“Originally I had planned on traveling to Scotland last fall to see them and arrange for their being authenticated. Unfortunately medical issues prevented this. I am hopeful that I will be able to make that trip this fall.” While I am sympathetic to Phil's health issues, there is absolutely no reasonable justification for relying on Ian Scott-Taylor or his diaries at this point. It is entirely unacceptable methodology, especially given the plethora of problems with the few “diary” entries that Ian has supplied thus far.
Years have passed, yet Phil still hasn't even bothered to check out the diaries in person, nor has he had them authenticated by any reputable expert. Phil should know better than to trust material from Ian Scott-Taylor. So far as Phil knows, Ian may be creating these “diaries” on an ‘as needed’ basis.
Unfortunately, the same applies to LINKS Magazine. As noted above, Phil has admitted that he doesn't have diaries and hasn't even seen them in person, so he could not have possibly had them authenticated and verified. If Phil doesn't have them, then Green Jacket hasn't seen them either. The only one who could vouch for their authenticity is Ian Scott-Taylor, an admitted liar who created a false authentication report as part of a fraudulent scheme to induce prospective buyers into believing that the diaries and collection were real. At the very least, LINKS Magazine should have waited to publish this material until the diaries could be authenticated.
Moreover, much of the information supposedly from the diaries has turned out to be false. Yet, by including quotes supposedly from the diaries, LINKS Magazine is carelessly presenting as true unverified, unauthenticated, and extremely suspect material sourced directly from an admitted con artist.
Mr. Frank did not seem at all concerned about LINKS Magazine’s reliance on the unauthenticated and highly suspect diary entries. He acknowledged that Phil has never even seen the actual diaries, but LINKS relied on them nonetheless, apparently because: Phil has some photographs of some of the diary entries and because Green Jacket Auctions has "accepted as authentic" at least two legal letters both stating that the drawings and diaries were part of the various estates. Mr. Frank also mentioned that “there is also the word of the law firm regarding their possession of the materials.”
But it is impossible for Green Jacket or any reputable expert to have “authenticated” those diaries based a few photographs. And judging from Phil’s recent comments on golfclubatlas.com the “legal letters” and “word from the law firm regarding possession” seem to be the same letters that Phil has been touting for the past two years. I’ve seen those letters and they do nothing to establish the authenticity of the specific diary entries that Phil has brought forward, or, for that matter, the authenticity of anything else.
The blind acceptance and use by LINKS Magazine of the diary entries is particularly troubling because the overwhelming evidence indicates that the supposed diaries are largely a work of fiction. LINKS doesn’t care. When I tried to explain this in a follow up email, but Mr. Frank’s dismissed my concerns outright and without explanation.
3.
Why is LINKS Magazine representing that these drawings have been in a vault in a solicitor’s office for the past 80 years, when, according to Phil and Ian, the material was also under “Mum’s bed,” (if these particular drawings previously existed at all)?
LINKS included the following statement in the article: "Incredibly, [the drawings] have sat in a vault in England for the last 80-plus years,” and wrote essentially the same thing in the cover “teaser.” This is a powerful statement. It creates the (false) impression that the drawings are definitely 80 years old, and that they have been out of the reach of anyone with an incentive to alter, manipulate, add to or subtract from, or even forge the artwork, diaries, or anything else. But the statement is not true, as even Phil Young has admitted.
When Phil was first shopping the material around, he indicated that all of the material had been found in a box underneath Ian's "Mum's bed.” After Phil began telling people the material had been locked away for over 80 years, I asked Phil, "Isn't it true that you guys have previously represented that the Scott-Taylor Material was actually stored in a box underneath the bed of Ian Scott-Taylor’s mother?" Phil responded, "I didn't 'represent' it, I specifically stated it." He then went on to try and qualify his previous statements about how the stuff was under “Mum's bed,” explaining that sometimes the material was at the solicitor’s office but other times (when the family was sharing it with friends, or looking at it, or whatever) the material was under Ian's mother's bed. (
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59667.msg1406167.html#msg1406167.)
Even if we take Phil’s qualification at face value, Phil has admitted that material was not locked in a vault for 80 years. And it was not out of reach of those with an incentive to alter, manipulate, or even add to or subtract from the material through forgery and other means.
More specifically, the collection was within easy reach of Ian Scott-Taylor, who has admitted to creating a false authentication report to try to trick the golf world into believing that this collection was authentic, and thus to fraudulently induce potential purchasers into buying items from the collection. (The LINKS article also states, uncritically, that Phil has had the “provenance” of the drawings authenticated. He has done no such thing, but I’ll leave that discussion for another time.)
So far as I could decipher, Mr. Frank didn’t really even try to respond to this question, except perhaps for his mention of the two “legal letters” and that “there is also the word of the law firm regarding their possession of the materials.” I am not sure how Mr. Frank might think those sources impact the issue, but no matter what some solicitor wrote, the “80 plus years in a vault” claim is false, as Phil and Ian have admitted. And no amount of supposed "legal letters" can change this.
So the LINKS’ leader is false, as is the similar claim in the article. If this was an inadvertent mistake at first, LINKS now knows (or should know) that the claim is false. Yet LINKS IS letting the misrepresentations stand. They haven’t corrected it.
Why is LINKS carelessly running such a suspect story? And why is LINKS sticking with it after others and I have informed LINKS of the many red flags?
I don't know the answers for certain, but it seems like, 1) LINKS trusts that Phil Young has ably figured this all out and addressed all of the potential pitfalls; 2) Phil Young is not being straight with Mr. Frank and LINKS.
Remember when I mentioned that Mr. Frank referenced me to an email he had sent which included an explanation from Phil Young? Well, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Phil Young is not being straight with Mr. Frank and LINKS Magazine. He is misrepresenting what has thus far transpired, and downplaying or ignoring most of the overwhelming problems with this material. I’ll elaborate on his latest misrepresentations when I get the chance.