GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and the Problematic Scott-Taylor Collection (Updated)

(1/13) > >>

DMoriarty:

As Phil Young mentioned is his recent Hubris thread, I approached Phil (and Ran) early last week regarding the accuracy in Phil’s recent article about Tillinghast’s supposed May 1901 trip to St. Andrews. While I appreciate Phil’s cooperation and consideration during our discussions, I nonetheless came away from our discussions with even stronger reservations about the veracity the various stories, and about the authenticity of all of the Scott-Taylor materials.  Because I was unable to privately convince Phil and Ran to distance themselves and golfclubatlas.com from the Scott-Taylor Collection, so I am now raising my concerns publicly. 

An Act in Three Stories.
As I see it, Phil (and Ian Scott-Taylor) are telling us three interrelated but incompatible stories:
   - The first story - last week’s story - was Phil’s amazingly detailed account of Tillinghast’s experiences in St. Andrews in May 1901. We were told that this story was based on the personal journal entries of David Scott-Taylor.
   - The second story - this week’s story - is all about how last week’s story was largely erroneous and most definitely NOT based on the personal journal of David Scott-Taylor.  This story is set out in Phil’s Hubris thread.
   - The third story - next week’s story - will try to recast the first story, only with a remarkably different set of details.  Phil will try to tell us that this story is based on the personal journal entries of David Scott-Taylor, but we have heard that one before.  Ran plans to replace the first story with this story, as if it was simply a matter of cleaning up some typos, or correcting a minor mistake.

Individually, none these stories make sense, especially when we compare them.  And when we consider the stories together and compare them and their stated bases, they make even less sense.  But before I get this, let me first provide a few key details about the demise of the first story and the formation of the next two.

A Discovery and an Abrupt Change.
According to the first story, the personal journals of David Scott-Taylor a meticulously detailed account of Tillinghast’s time in St. Andrews in May 1901.  In order to convince Phil that Tillinghast was not in Scotland in May of 1901, I provided Phil with detailed information regarding Tillinghast’s actual whereabouts and travel plans for the period, including the following:
        -May 5, 1901. AWT was at home playing cricket for the Philadelphia Cricket Club team.
        -May 23, 1901. AWT was again at home playing cricket for the Cricket Club.
        -June 15, 1901. AWT was golfing at Belfield.
        -June 29, 1901. AWT and his wife were scheduled to depart NY on the Lucania for Liverpool on the next day.  (They must have delayed by about a week.)
        -July 20, 1901. AWT and his wife arrived in Liverpool (from NY) aboard the Campania.

Without asking me, Phil forwarded the details my research to Ian Scott-Taylor. Several hours later, Mr. Scott-Taylor sent Phil typed transcriptions (not photographs) of four journal entries. Shortly after receiving the transcriptions, Phil provided me with selections from these transcriptions, and some days later Phil provided me with what seem to be transcriptions of the entire entries. I cannot confirm this though, because Mr. Scott-Taylor will not let Phil show me the photographs of the journal pages.

To Phil, these transcriptions not only addressed all my concerns, they also provide absolute proof of what happened, and they add another layer of authenticity to the sketches. Thus Phil’s third story - one based on these supposed journal pages - was born.  But we are getting ahead of ourselves.  Before Phil and Ian Scott-Taylor can tell the third story, they have to get rid of last week’s story. To this end, their story abruptly changed. 

The Disappearing Journal Entries.
Up until I figured out Tillinghast wasn’t even in St. Andrews in May 1901, Phil had insisted that first story was detailed in the journal entries. But Phil now claims that he wasn’t being straight with us when he told us this. He had never even seen these journal entries. Or at least that is what he telling us now.

How could this happen?  Phil claims he didn’t bother to look at the journal entries because the “logistics” of a private Scott-Taylor "family situation” made it difficult for him access this material. In my opinion, this doesn’t come close to justifying his failure to properly vet his article, and it most definitely does not excuse or explain his repeated false claims that he had based his article on the journal entries. Phil should have known better.

But for Phil it seems to come down to trust. Simply put, Phil trusts Ian Scott-Taylor implicitly and he has absolutely no doubt that this stuff is legitimate. He told me so. As he put it in  his Hubris thread, “I accepted what had been told me by the family as being the truth.”   It is incredibly shoddy methodology, but i believe him.

Phil trusted the Scott-Taylor family to provide him with the truth. The Scott-Taylor family instead provided Phil with an extremely detailed work of fiction. And the Scott-Taylor family made it very difficult for Phil or anyone else to check up on their story.

While Phil may still trust his source implicitly, I have serious reservations about the authenticity of these supposed journal entries and related material.

Mrs. Tillinghast, Changed Plans, Cricket, and the “Campania.”
When I first read the these supposed journal entries I was struck by how closely they tracked what I had just told Phil about Tillinghast. (This is especially true of the supposed July 20, 1901 journal entry.)  Most obviously, the supposed journal pages neatly explain away much of the old story, which was also supposed to have been based on the journal entries. 
  - In these supposed journal entries, Tillinghast wasn't there in May of 1901.
  - The journal entries also just happen to explain away the May 12 Tillinghast note on Scores Hotel letterhead, which, ironically, had been offered to prove that Tillinghast was there. 
  - The journal entries even manage to explain away the “May 1901” date on the Road Hole sketch, offering up that Tillinghast had only signed it “1901” suggesting the May must have been added later.

I found it remarkable that that they came up with journal entries which conveniently addressed each of the major problems that I had just raised.  I was also struck by the uncanny resemblance between the detailed information I had provided them, on the one hand, and the detailed information in these supposed journal pages, on the other.   
 - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast was traveling with his wife.  The transcriptions discuss at length how Tillinghast was traveling with his wife.
  - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast and his wife had originally planned to depart NYC for Liverpool at the end of June. The transcriptions mention that Tillinghast was originally scheduled to arrive in Liverpool at the beginning of July.
  - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast arrived in Liverpool on July 20, 1920, on the “Campania.”  The supposed journal entries discuss that David Scott-Taylor went to meet Tillinghast and his wife, who arrived in Liverpool on July 20, 1920, on the “Campania.”
  - I had informed Phil that Tillinghast had been playing a lot of cricket. The new journal entries repeatedly reference Tillinghast's interest in cricket.

The journal entries not only fixed the old story, they also covered most everything I had covered. In fact, most of the relevant and verifiable details in these supposed journal entries could have come directly from me.  Sure there are references to easily researchable current events, and there are plenty of platitudes about Tillinghast that Phil was sure to love, but most of the verifiable information about Tillinghast’s trip could have come straight from my message to Phil.  The one which he had forwarded to Ian Scott-Taylor

Phil tried to convince me that details such as these add a layer of authenticity because they match up well with what I had found. The obvious problem with this argument is that I had provided Phil (and, indirectly, Ian Scott-Taylor) with all this information before they came up with these new transcriptions of these supposed journal pages.

But what of the photographs of the supposed journal pages?  As I mentioned, according to Phil Mr. Scott-Taylor did not send the actual photographs when he sent the transcriptions, even though Phil had specifically requested them.  Something about “logistics” I am sure, but I don’t understand how he could come up with transcriptions but not have images of the journals. According to Phil, Mr.  Scott-Taylor did begin sending images of the supposed journals a day or two later, but he sent them in a piecemeal fashion over a couple of days.  Not all at once.  Why would he do that?

[But why does it matter when he sent the images? Had Scott-Taylor been able to immediately send actual images of these pages, I might have found the supposed journal pages more convincing.  But as it was, all I had was were transcriptions telling me a bunch of stuff that I had just told Phil, and Phil had just told Ian Scott-Taylor.]

Old Tom, Alistair Mackenzie, and “Golf Course Design.” 
It also struck me how these supposed journal pages addressed the topic of “golf course design.”  Perhaps it isn’t a big surprise that these guys would be talking about golf links, or even the creation of links/courses, but the terminology they used in these supposed journals was a surprise . . . 

“golf course design.”   . . . “with a golf designer friend of his” . . . “Old Tom designed layouts” . . . “[Old Tom’s] explanation of how he designed . . . “Old Tom and Mac were deep into golf course design” . . . “[Tillinghast’s] views on design.”

These are all phrases that one might read on golfclubatlas.com today, and are very much part of the modern lexicon of golf course architecture. But were these phrases being used in this manner in 1901? My understanding is that phrases like “golf course design” did not enter the lexicon until much later.  Same goes for the reference to MacKenzie’s “golf designer friend,” and the other references as well. 

Were Old Tom and Mackenzie what we think of today as golf course designers?  Of course they were.  But I’d be extremely surprised if David Scott-Taylor referred to them (or to Mackeanzie’s mystery friend) as such in 1901. 

Or perhaps I am misremembering the literature.  Does any one have any references to the phrases ‘golf course design,’ or ‘golf course designers’ from circa 1901 or before?  Thanks.

(continued below)

DMoriarty:
(continued)

The Surreal Story of Drinking Buddies, Good Reads, and Very Posh Hotels which are Not My Cup of Tea.
I was also surprised by some of the other language in these supposed 1901 and 1917 journal entries.  They read to me like a modern author is pretending he was writing in 1901, but was not doing a very convincing job of it. Here are some particular words and phrases which are incongruous with the supposed date of the article.

Drinking Buddies.  Let’s start with alleged words of Old Tom Morris, in the May 11, 1901 entry, where the author has Old Tom Morris explaining Andra Kirkaldy's planned meeting at the Royal Hotel:  “I also offered Andra to join us but he had a previous engagement at the Royal Hotel. Tom explained ‘drinking buddies.’”

Below is an image generated by the Google Ngram Viewer, searching for the phrase “drinking buddies” and the related “drinking buddy.” Google Ngram is an incredible searchable database consisting of Google’s entire corpus of over 8 million books, and over a half trillion published words in American English and British English, combined. In short, it is a database for tracking and comparing the usage of published words and phrases over time, and it provides a useful tool for helping bring about an understanding when selected words and phrases were commonly used (if they were used at all.)



As you can see, the phrase “drinking buddies” and the related “drinking buddy” don’t seem to have been in use at all around 1901.  

For comparison’s sake only, and to demonstrate how Google Ngram Viewer works, here is another phrase from the supposed journal entries, but one that actually was in use in 1901, “a previous engagement.”



Note that this phrase was relatively more common in 1901 than it is now. If these journal entries really were written in 1901, we should expect to see plenty of words phrases like this, but no words and phrases which were not in use at the time.  

Finding distinctly modern words and phrases being used in 1901 would be a bit like finding Old Tom on the first tee at The Old Course with a Big Bertha titanium driver.  

Did Old Tom Morris coin the phrase “drinking buddies,” many decades before it showed up in common usage?  It seems extremely unlikely.

Very Posh. It seems Mr. David Scott-Taylor must have been fond of phrase “very posh” to connote luxurious, elegant, high class accommodations. The supposed entry for July 20, 1901 uses the phrase “very posh” to describe the first class accommodations on a passenger liner, and then again to describe an elegant and luxurious hotel lobby.  

But while the word “posh” has been around a very long time and has had different meanings (to connote a type of money, for instance, or possibly as slang for “a dandy”), the term as used in the supposed journal entries didn’t come into use until more until over a dozen years after it was supposedly used in the journal:  “Posh, meaning ‘smart, stylish, splendid, luxurious’ is first recorded in 1914, with the chiefly British strand of meaning, ‘typical of the upper classes; snooty’, following soon after.” http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/02/what-is-the-origin-of-posh/   “Origin: 1915–20.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/posh?s=t

And the transcription doesn't just say “posh.”  It twice says “very posh.” The phrase “very posh” is much a part of the language today, but this phrase was not is use in 1901.  

Here is the Google Ngram Image. (The small red line at 1900 seems to be the result of a indexing error.  The only book showing up from that period was mis-indexed and was actually published a century later.)
 



Surreal Backdrop.  From Phil's transcription of the supposed journal entry dated April 16, 1917:  “The sound of distant guns and the eerie silence in between made for a serial backdrop to a conversation of home, hopes and laughter with a dear friend.”

A “serial” backdrop?  Surely this must either be a misspelling or a mis-transcription of “surreal backdrop,” otherwise it makes no sense in any era.  According to numerous sources, including Oxford Dictionaries and Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “surreal” originated in the 1930s (1937) and was a “back-formation from surrealism.” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surreal?q=surreal, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surreal?q=surreal



While not entirely relevant, I should perhaps explain that the word “Surrealism” was first coined in the summer of 1917 to describe a Parisian ballet called “Parade.” (This was a month or so after David Taylor-Scott supposedly referred to a “surreal backdrop.”) Regardless, “surreal” and “Surrealism” are two different words with different but related meanings.  And the word “surreal” did not come into use until two decades later after the 1917 mention of Surrealism.

Heads Home. The supposed April 16, 1917 journal entry mentioned, “Mac heads home tomorrow.” I figured a phrase like “heads home” would probably have been around forever. Apparently not.



Note that Google Ngram searches cannot filter for meaning, so when a phrase consists of two common words like “head” and “home”  they will occasionally up next to each other in texts without connoting this meaning, and so there is bound to be some noise along the bottom of the graph. I’ve looked through a large sample of the search results for the period in question, and found no matches for the usage in the transcriptions.

A Great Read. In the supposed May 28, 1911 journal entry, the author mentioned that he enjoyed reading an article by referring to “a great read.”  The author wrote, “Really looking forward to this article . . . had a great read with a cup of tea and sausage roll.“

The phrase, as used, doesn’t seem to have been in existence at the time.  (Again there is some noise on the graph because common words sometime show up next to each other in other contexts.  After reviewing many of the search results, it looks as if the phrase “great read” (and the related phrase “good read”) were not used in 1901 as they are used in the transcriptions.)



Well There You Go. The transcription dated July 20, 1901 included the following sentence: “He produced this box thing, a camera he said looked more like a box for holding tea in to me, well there you go.”

The use of “well there you go,” in this fashion seems to be distinctly modern.



Not My Cup of Tea.  The supposed May 28, 1901 journal entry contains the idiom “not my cup of tea” to denote something the author did not like: [/i]“I hate interviews, not my cup of tea.”[/i]

It has “tea” in it, so I guess it sounds British enough. Online sources trace its origins to the 1930’s. Also, I searched for the phrase in the British online newspapers archive, and the first related reference I could was from the 1930s.  See also http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/My-Cup-of-Tea.html

Additionally, here is the Google Ngram Viewer image showing the appearance of the phrase in the Google corpora. (Again the small line near 1900 seems to be the result of a single mis-indexed book, as a book published in 2013 is listed as published in 1900.)



A Bugger of a Trip.  Supposedly from May 11, 1901.     “. . . it was a bugger of a trip.”

The phrase “bugger of a . . .”  sounds British to American ears, but was it in use in 1901?  Apparently not.



News wise.  Supposedly from May 28, 1901. “Got the late edition newspaper still this mine disaster, not much else news wise.”

Neither “news wise” nor “newswise” was being used in 1901.



There are more, some of which I will be adding later, but you get the picture. Whoever wrote these journals doesn’t seem to have written them in 1901 or 1917.

The Story of Old Tom’s Mischievous Look, Not Seen “Before or Since.”
One sentence in the supposed journals struck me as so out of place in a journal, that I though it might deserve mention.  From the May 11, 1901 transcription: “When I told Old Tom that Alistair MacKenzie would be there, he gleamed with a mischievous look I have not seen before or since.”

Before or since? Isn’t this supposed to be from a journal entry?  The “since” in “before or since” only has meaning if the author is looking back at an event after some significant passage of time. “Before or since” sounds as it it came out of a memoir, not a journal  The phrase makes no sense in a journal which was supposedly written within hours of the event taking place.

A Belated ‘Thanks’ on Scores Letterhead Sent from Philadelphia, Concerning a Trip Long Passed.
One of the details holding the old story together was the bit about how, the day after the infamous dinner at the Scores Hotel, Tillinghast jotted out a note thanking David Scott-Taylor for his 
“hospitality in St. Andrews.”  Not only did it confirm Tillinghast’s presence, it also made perfect sense.  The timing is right for such a note, and the occasion - the dinner - quite obvious. And the stationary was appropriate because Tillinghast was (supposedly) in St. Andrews.  But Tillinghast wasn’t in St. Andrews.

These new supposed journal pages try to address this, just as they conveniently address all of the problems created by Tillinghast having not been there in May 1901. Now the story is that the note must have been sent from Philadelphia, and did not arrive until May 28, 1901.

But why then it is on Scores letterhead?  And why would Tillinghast have written out a brief note on May 12, 1901 thanking David Scott-Taylor for “his hospitality in St. Andrews?”  Tillinghast was nowhere near St. Andrews on May 12, 1901.  

I guess we are supposed to believe that Tillinghast must have had the stationary from a previous trip, and that he must have been thanking David Scott-Taylor for some past hospitality in St. Andrews during some past golf season.  But this makes little sense, especially given that Tillinghast and David Scott-Taylor had supposedly been corresponding regularly, and so there were many opportunities to have thanked him.

[By the way, now that I have pointed this out, I half expect that Ian Scott-Taylor will soon send Phil another journal entry explaining away the strange timing of the note.   For good measure, maybe the next round of journal entries will also mention how David TScott-Taylor was close with and poet Guillaume Apollinaire and others who were about to launch the French Surrealism movement, and about how they taught him a neat word that Scott-Taylor decided it might be fun shorten.  Surreal.]

And, speaking of Scores Hotel letterhead, how come the image in the story does not show Scores hotel letterhead?  And how come the Scott-Taylor family didn’t bother to look at the journals when they photographed this note for Phil’s story?

Affidavits, the British Museum, and Inauthentic Authentication.
I thought I’d briefly address this because Phil, Ran, and others keep suggesting we should accept all this stuff as real because it has all been vetted, verified, and authenticated by about every authority short of the Queen herself. I’ve heard of sworn affidavits, MacKenzie experts, paper dating, the British Museum, handwriting experts, pencil gurus, and I cannot remember what else.  Phil went so far as to insist that a solicitor had “personal knowledge” of the exact whereabouts of all the Scott-Taylor material going back for at least 100 years. That must be one old solicitor.

I know this is all supposed to sound very impressive, but I have my doubts. Claims about affidavits and expert opinions aren’t something that one should blindly accept.  For one reason, it is easy to overstate the significance of affidavits and expert opinions.  For example, we have heard  about how the sketches must be real because an expert said at least some of them are on old paper.  Sounds impressive, but it is hardly dispositive.  If accurate, all this tells us is that the paper was old, but one can find or purchase old paper today.  (For example I found a  website selling a variety of old paper, as well as blank diary made around 1902.)

Also, it isn’t necessarily difficult find an expert or even a solicitor to say what you want him or her to say.  It is much harder to find one that whose opinion and/or affidavit can stand up to critical scrutiny.  Do the affidavits, reports, etc. stand up to critical scrutiny?  I couldn't say. I haven't seen them or the actual sketches, journals, etc. Even if I had seen them, I'd probably still have some questions about what exactly has been done to ensure that this material is what it purports to be.  There is more to the process than just throwing out the word "affidavit" or quoting Ran.

Plus, remember how we were all told that the Road Hole sketch checked out and it was what they claimed it to be?  Well, back then they were claiming it to be a sketch created by Tillinghast in May of 1901 while Tillinghast was in St. Andrews, and dated by Tillinghast, “May 1901.”  And at least some of this information is inaccurate.  So much for the authentication process regarding these details.

I’d be very interested in seeing the affidavits specifically indicating that these four new journal pages were created in 1901.  I am having trouble imagining how one would even word such an affidavit, but i am curious to see it nonetheless.

The End of It?  I Wish.
I have many more reservations about the veracity of these stories and the authenticity of the Scott-Taylor Collection, but I’ll stop here for now, because some my other concerns will require me to directly address extended passages from the transcriptions that Phil has not brought public yet. I will hold off on addressing these now so as to avoid confusion, but I did address a few of the questionable words or phrases from these passages here because their usage can easily be understood without getting too deep into the overall context. I don’t want to wait until after Ran and Phil delete the old story and state my concerns because the existence of old story and casts serous doubt on the veracity of the new story, and I am hoping that people will actually consider this before Ran and Phil make the old story disappear.


____________________

ADDENDUM:   Corrected formatting, spacing, spelling, grammar, and names.

Mark Bourgeois:
David,

I have been perusing Ngrams for terms, too, as well as the OED for word / phrase etymologies.

Just off a quick read, I don't think you have 'fly on the wall'. Working from Ngrams through to actual books, regarding the diary's usage of the phrase I was able to find one entry in Google Books corresponding to that meaning, dating to an 1881 work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jHgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69&dq=%22fly+on+the+wall%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mKDaU4urCI73oAT0xYHACA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22fly%20on%20the%20wall%22&f=false

All other usages appear to relate to actual flies on walls.  :)

Word etymologies are tricky given the vitality of the English language -- particularly in / after times of war such as the Boer War. I am not sure it is possible to conclusively disprove the initial date of a usage; technologies such as Ngram do a better job of demonstrating growth in usage rather than initial usage. It is dependent upon a limited data set (scanned books).

This said, three suggestions regarding Ngrams:
1) Run the words *without* smoothing -- this should better pinpoint usages
2) click on Google Books search by timeframes beneath the nGrams
3) peruse the results for meanings not simply usage.

Further suggestions would be to search old newspaper dBs as well.

Sorry for the 'dandruff' post (flaky and off the top of my head) -- I'll read more carefully tonight.

Cheers,
Mark

DMoriarty:
Mark,  I seriously considered including "fly on the wall."  In fact it was one of the first phrases I checked.

I chose to leave it out because of the 1888 mention and because at least the idea may go back further, (although it wasn't really expressed using the same words.)  See http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/174188/what-is-the-geographical-origin-of-the-idiom-be-a-fly-on-the-wall

In short, I wanted to be conservative and stick with words and phrases where there could be little debate as to their usage at the time. Honestly I don't think there could be much reasonable debate about whether "fly on the wall" was in use, but I was trying to be conservative so I left it out.

There are many more words and phrases that almost made the cut, as well as a few that did make the cut but I just got tired of putting it all together.

As for your suggestions, thanks. But I think I have all that covered.

1) I did not smooth when first researching, but IMO the slightly "smoothed" graph presents better, and from checking it seems even single entry words and phrases show up on graph.

2)  I checked all the entries against google books and where I had doubts, I also checked against other sources such as British Online Newspaper Archives, and other archives where appropriate.  (For example I searched golf related archives for for the golf related phrases.)

3)  I did this was well, as I think I explain above.  

Thanks again for you suggestions.

Mark Bourgeois:
David,

Yes I do think you "have all that covered." Very thorough piece of research on your part. I have gone through Ngrams and the OED, using slightly differing methodologies in some cases, and have replicated or verified your results using those sources.

It's a strong argument, as it goes. I will say as a general caveat I am somewhat reluctant to use Internet repositories and even the OED to "prove" entry dates of words and phrases into the English language. Both are fantastic sources but incomplete. By the time a word / phrase makes it into a book or formal written document, it may have been in circulation as slang for years prior. For example, regarding "backdrop" (used with "surreal" / "serial"), the OED (online version) has the first usage dating to 1913. Like many compound words when they appear in the English language, it is originally hyphenated: "back-drop". Also, the OED puts the first figurative (as opposed to literal) use of the term at 1947. The original term (back-drop) originated in the US theater.

So do we conclude the word is out of time in the early 1900s? It seems so, but using Google Books I found several entries dating to the late 1800s, for example Harper's Roundtable making several mentions of "back-drop" in vol 16, page 28. These all appear to be theater references not figurative as in the diary entry, so probably a point against the entry's veracity, but who really can say for certain that no one of the day made figurative use?

This example and my caveat aside, the "preponderance of evidence" you've amassed must be given strong consideration. My views count for little if anything but for whatever it's worth I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of it.

What I really hope for, as clearly you do, too, is an open vetting of the materials. Get it all out there for a good scouring.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page