Pine Valley Aerials

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't know if these images have been shown recently, but I thought it would be worth posting, you lot may enjoy them.

Note, click to view the full size, click again to shrink back down. They are large images. You can scroll with the arrow keys on your computer.

1931 Here we’re looking southeast along the course.


1935 Here we’re looking east-southeast along the course. Part of #1 green and the tee for #2 are out of frame in the lower left corner.


1938 Here we’re looking northwest along the course.



Close-Ups

Pine Valley #9 1938



#15a 1938


#15b 1938


Clubhouse 1932



Hope it was enjoyable, let us know what you think.

[Steve Lang]

THANKS


I REMEMBER SCOTT BURROUGHS HAD MORE RECENT PINE VALLEY VIEWS IN HIS AOTD (AERIAL OF THE DAY) THREADS, BUT I BELIEVE THE LINKS WERE BROKEN A LONG TIME AGO...   


SCOTT ARE YOU OUT THERE??

[Michael Chadwick]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

[Mark Fedeli]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

[Charlie Goerges]

You're welcome!


Also they (and especially the 1938 image) give a great view of how 12 used to look, if you zoom in.

[Robert Kimball]

THANKS


I REMEMBER SCOTT BURROUGHS HAD MORE RECENT PINE VALLEY VIEWS IN HIS AOTD (AERIAL OF THE DAY) THREADS, BUT I BELIEVE THE LINKS WERE BROKEN A LONG TIME AGO...   


SCOTT ARE YOU OUT THERE??

I haven't seen Scott since the early days of GCA.  Maybe he's been posting, and I just haven't seen it.  Those AOTDs were phenomenal. You see them all over twitter now, but Scott was the first. 

[Anthony Gholz]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

Michael/Mark:  The 1938 and the 15a closeup of '38 regarding #17.  I've never seen anything better that shows the alternate fairway.  Still looks mowed to me in '38.  I wish I'd had that image for the book.  Alison does still live in B&W.  Thanks so much Charlie!  Anthony

[Mark Fedeli]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

Michael/Mark:  The 1938 and the 15a closeup of '38 regarding #17.  I've never seen anything better that shows the alternate fairway.  Still looks mowed to me in '38.  I wish I'd had that image for the book.  Alison does still live in B&W.  Thanks so much Charlie!  Anthony

Look very closely at the 35/38 images, especially 35, you can see a quite well-defined mowing line separating right from left (it's a little curved bulge). To my eyes, those 35/38 images show the rough lines more definitively than the 31 image shows a fairway cut.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

Michael/Mark:  The 1938 and the 15a closeup of '38 regarding #17.  I've never seen anything better that shows the alternate fairway.  Still looks mowed to me in '38.  I wish I'd had that image for the book.  Alison does still live in B&W.  Thanks so much Charlie!  Anthony

Look very closely at the 35/38 images, especially 35, you can see a quite well-defined mowing line separating right from left (it's a little curved bulge). To my eyes, those 35/38 images show the rough lines more definitively than the 31 image shows a fairway cut.

I kind of see it the same way Mark, but I would say the photos are far from conclusive in this way. Also, it wouldn't have to be maintained at fairway height to still be a good, playable option.

[archie_struthers]

  I've played that right fairway on #17 but not on purpose


What struck me is the fifteenth green in the pictures it seems much wider than long and the left side seems different. Going to have to break out the old magnifying glass!


Thanks so much for the pictures!

[Tim_Weiman]

I've played that right fairway on #17 but not on purpose


What struck me is the fifteenth green in the pictures it seems much wider than long and the left side seems different. Going to have to break out the old magnifying glass!


Thanks so much for the pictures!

I had the same reaction to the picture 15 green. That is not the way I remember it.

[Charlie Goerges]

Here are a couple more recent images of 15:








It does seem a little narrower, but it may be a bit of an optical illusion because of the width of the corridor.

[Mark Fedeli]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

Michael/Mark:  The 1938 and the 15a closeup of '38 regarding #17.  I've never seen anything better that shows the alternate fairway.  Still looks mowed to me in '38.  I wish I'd had that image for the book.  Alison does still live in B&W.  Thanks so much Charlie!  Anthony

Look very closely at the 35/38 images, especially 35, you can see a quite well-defined mowing line separating right from left (it's a little curved bulge). To my eyes, those 35/38 images show the rough lines more definitively than the 31 image shows a fairway cut.

I kind of see it the same way Mark, but I would say the photos are far from conclusive in this way. Also, it wouldn't have to be maintained at fairway height to still be a good, playable option.

That would be interesting, intentionally having options that provide a better angle or shorter approach but come with slightly less predictable lies due to higher mowing height. I smell a new trend.

[Anthony Gholz]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

Michael/Mark:  The 1938 and the 15a closeup of '38 regarding #17.  I've never seen anything better that shows the alternate fairway.  Still looks mowed to me in '38.  I wish I'd had that image for the book.  Alison does still live in B&W.  Thanks so much Charlie!  Anthony

Look very closely at the 35/38 images, especially 35, you can see a quite well-defined mowing line separating right from left (it's a little curved bulge). To my eyes, those 35/38 images show the rough lines more definitively than the 31 image shows a fairway cut.

Mark:  I agree.  Your eyes are better than mine.  I was just so thrilled (and am) to see the original alternate fairway so beautifully rendered.  I had never seen this photographic proof, just words before. Today all trees, but it looks like to could be restored.  Thanks again for these images Charlie.  Anthony

[Tim_Weiman]

Thanks Charlie. The 1938 photos show a neat butterfly-winged double fairway on 17 that I'd never previously noticed.

That 1931 aerial is the best I’ve seen at showing the right side option at a fairway cut. Looks like it was already turning to rough by the 1935 image.

Michael/Mark:  The 1938 and the 15a closeup of '38 regarding #17.  I've never seen anything better that shows the alternate fairway.  Still looks mowed to me in '38.  I wish I'd had that image for the book.  Alison does still live in B&W.  Thanks so much Charlie!  Anthony

Look very closely at the 35/38 images, especially 35, you can see a quite well-defined mowing line separating right from left (it's a little curved bulge). To my eyes, those 35/38 images show the rough lines more definitively than the 31 image shows a fairway cut.

Mark:  I agree.  Your eyes are better than mine.  I was just so thrilled (and am) to see the original alternate fairway so beautifully rendered.  I had never seen this photographic proof, just words before. Today all trees, but it looks like to could be restored.  Thanks again for these images Charlie.  Anthony

Tony,


When Matt Fulton and I attended the Walker Cup, someone mentioned
the alternate fairway, but I think it was pretty much, if not entirely, gone at that point. It was hard to even imagine.

[Kalen Braley]

A approx. "side by side" comparison of 17 from then and now.  Looks like the entire right section is completely reclaimed by the woods/foliage.

[archie_struthers]

 


That picture of 17 is so cool with the old fairway exposed !  I wonder why they would have ever let that go fallow.  My only guess would be that the hole would be easier from the right due to the cant of the green.


  In the day it was extremely important that PVGC be considered one of the hardest golf courses in the world. Maybe that was the genesis. I can't imagine that there was any reason other than that. If you look at it the train tracks are pretty close to someone that flared it right but a safety issue? Think not in that the train wasn't running very often.
Too easy is the only thing that makes sense.


Boy would love if Tom Paul would chime in on this as we would have been round and round on the history. Those were the days!




Such good memories for me , thanks Charlie

[Charlie Goerges]

You’re most welcome Archie and Anthony!

[Tim_Weiman]

That picture of 17 is so cool with the old fairway exposed !  I wonder why they would have ever let that go fallow.  My only guess would be that the hole would be easier from the right due to the cant of the green.


  In the day it was extremely important that PVGC be considered one of the hardest golf courses in the world. Maybe that was the genesis. I can't imagine that there was any reason other than that. If you look at it the train tracks are pretty close to someone that flared it right but a safety issue? Think not in that the train wasn't running very often.
Too easy is the only thing that makes sense.


Boy would love if Tom Paul would chime in on this as we would have been round and round on the history. Those were the days!




Such good memories for me , thanks Charlie

Archie,


I’d be shocked if Tom Paul didn’t have an opinion.

[Mark Fedeli]

That picture of 17 is so cool with the old fairway exposed !  I wonder why they would have ever let that go fallow.  My only guess would be that the hole would be easier from the right due to the cant of the green.


  In the day it was extremely important that PVGC be considered one of the hardest golf courses in the world. Maybe that was the genesis. I can't imagine that there was any reason other than that. If you look at it the train tracks are pretty close to someone that flared it right but a safety issue? Think not in that the train wasn't running very often.
Too easy is the only thing that makes sense.


Boy would love if Tom Paul would chime in on this as we would have been round and round on the history. Those were the days!




Such good memories for me , thanks Charlie

I'd always wondered if it was because the right-side option was rarely used. Looks like an additional 20-30 yards of carry, potential tree trouble if you go too far right, and a somewhat less friendly angle into the green. Not being a terribly long hole, I wonder if the slight shortcut just wasn't worth it.

[archie_struthers]

 


Tim, TEP and I had the greatest chats about PVGC !  We both shared a great affinity for the history and the architectural evolution. Charlie's pictures are incredible and the 17th hole alone should spark a great discussion on site. Why did they remove the fairway?

Mark Fedeli , I'm Brooklyn to the SJ shore ...reverse trip. I think the tee shot would have been easier to the right fairway for most players , and the angle in deserves discussion . Not so sure it's a harder shot though long left is more in play.

Hopefully our resident sleuths will get on board and figure this one out.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I suspect the alternate fairway on 17  was removed because someone thought it rewarded a weak fade on what was already one of the easier/shorter holes on the course. Not unreasonable.

[MCirba]

I've walked that area of the alternate fairway on 17 a few times and an approach from there would definitely have a better angle and more visibility than from the left side.   However, what you can't see from the aerial is that it really isn't wide at all, and falls quickly down to the tracks and would result in an unplayable if not OB.   I suspect the reward wasn't worth that risk.

[Charlie Goerges]

I've walked that area of the alternate fairway on 17 a few times and an approach from there would definitely have a better angle and more visibility than from the left side.   However, what you can't see from the aerial is that it really isn't wide at all, and falls quickly down to the tracks and would result in an unplayable if not OB.   I suspect the reward wasn't worth that risk.

It's funny, because you want the better angle to require a better shot, but if the negative consequence outweighs the reward, it won't be used. In the aerial photos, the second fairway looks big enough, but perhaps the contour makes it play effectively smaller.

[Mark Fedeli]

All good points. Good to know the angle is better from the right.


Measuring it on Google Earth, it's possible the right side was actually more like an additional 40-50 yards of carry (if we measure from where the left-side fairway used to begin, before they added the approx 20 yards of rough that starts it off now). So possibly something like a 180-yard carry versus a 140-yard carry from the back of the original tee. That's a good poke in 1920, and a fairly daunting shot if the fairway did indeed fall off hard toward the trees.


Pretty fascinating discussion. Was it too easy, or too challenging, or maybe too hard to maintain, or simply too out of place compared to the rest of the design? Hope there's a definitive answer out there.