The Private History of San Francisco Golf Club

A privately published history of one of the most secretive clubs is at the public library

If you walk into the San Francisco Public Library and take the elevators up to the sixth floor, on your left you’ll see the Special Collection room. This room contains the rare and delicate books that the library thinks are too valuable or rare to lend out.

In this room is a single copy of History of San Francisco Golf Club, printed in 2014.¹

Why is this book in the Special Collections department? Well, the book was never published – not publicly, at least. It’s a book that was commissioned, researched, written, and printed solely for the members of the small club. Only a thousand copies exist (and will likely ever exist). I know all this because the SFPL’s Special Collections also has an earlier copy of the History of the San Francisco Golf Club from 1978.² That book is more widely known, and is available on a few auction sites. As far as I can tell, that version book also only had a thousand copies made, never had a reprinting, and was also never available for sale.

I found out about the book when I was doing research on Ingleside Golf Links, one of San Francisco’s lost golf courses. SFGC is the oldest golf club in the city, and they weren’t always at their current location. The club started out playing at the Presidio in 1895 and after 1904 then moved to the course at Ingleside, where they were for about a decade.³ I learned about this Ingleside connection and the 2014 version of the book via Golf Club Atlas. Not realizing the rarity of the book, I naively looked it up on the SF Public Library’s website, and there it was. Only later did I realize the improbability of what I’d found.

After a trip to the library to see it in person, the book was very, very helpful in my research on Ingleside.

1909 survey of Ingleside Golf Links published in the 2014 version of History of San Francisco Golf Club

This type of survey⁴ is so helpful because it immediately illustrates the significant changes to the course when compared to the only historic aerial photography⁵ that I’ve found.

Ingleside Golf Links aerial from 1941

The illustrated survey above clearly shows the impact of 19th Avenue’s construction. The north side of the course was lost to redevelopment, and it appears that the response was to extend the course westward, towards Harding Park. All this info about Ingleside is valuable for researchers and historians. Getting that into onto the wiki gives easy access to significant amounts of information about a relatively unknown course that is only barely in living memory.

General thoughts after going through the book

The section on Ingleside was just one of many in the book that are worthwhile. I have some fairly strong criticisms of topics not covered, but that’s beside the point. It’s a rich history of probably the most impactful club in the region. Golf in San Francisco and the greater Bay Area was heavily influenced by SFGC, probably more than any other club.

I would love to share more of the book with you, but unfortunately, I can’t. While there is fair use, even many of the historic photos that would be out of copyright probably aren’t, because like the book itself, they’ve never been formally published. Which brings me to my central theme here…

Why is this book not for sale!?!

The most frustrating thing about this entire experience was learning about this book and at the same moment learning that it wasn’t available.⁶ I am the exact type of person who would read this book! I could use it for researching multiple courses in the area. I need it to understand the context of golf in the place where I live. It’s quite clear that the San Francisco golf community as a whole would benefit greatly simply by having some kind of access to it. Yet it is not for sale, and the vast majority of interested parties probably do not even know that it exists.

Perhaps nobody cares

The obvious reason why folks might privately publish is just that nobody else is interested: “it’s a private club, who cares.” One might assume this was the SFGC’s reasoning for not making copies of the book publicly available. This, however, doesn’t make sense when there is a public interest in the club due to history and prominence. There is a significant amount written about golf’s most significant and historic courses and clubs, and there is interest in SFGC.

I realize that I may be so far into the niche golf space that I end up thinking that a bunch of folks want to buy a book that was probably written for only a handful of people, but given digital distribution it seems trivial to just put a digital copy out there for the few folk who want a copy.

Perhaps it’s some legal issue with private clubs

Here I must again consider the issue of the 501(c)(7) tax structure. Private clubs have to significantly limit their income from nonmembers. Still, as with all 501(c)(7) entities, their financials are public⁷ and they have significant revenues. It really doesn’t seem like some niche book sales are really going to get them in trouble. Even if it would, however, it still makes little sense not to give a copy to the SF Public Library or the Library of Congress.⁸

The only real concern I could even think of is copyright and the public domain. Again, there are plenty of photos in the book that would be in the public domain had they ever been formally published, but might not be if that never happened. Still, could there really be significant concern from the club about some hundred-year-old photos entering the public domain? It seems implausible.

Exclusivity, Secrecy, and Mimetic Theory

I’ve thought pretty hard about some of the more practical reasons why the club may not have made this book publicly available. Here, I’ll admit I’m more cynical than most; I want to explore what I think is actually happening. So, from the outset, let me be explicit that what follows is obviously speculation, and I really can’t know the hearts and minds of any club or its membership. I still want to discuss this though, as I think having an open and accessible historical record is important.

So, it’s not uncommon for a group to intentionally prevent access to some desired item. Mimetic theory is about desires based on comparison, or desires that are sparked mainly because of what others have, independent of one’s own need. “Keeping up with the Joneses” is the clichéd example of the theory.⁹ The application of mimetic theory to particularly exclusive goods and services¹⁰ involves the concept of mimetic dominance.

Mimetic dominance focuses on value creation by intentionally withholding access to something that would otherwise trivially be available to others.¹¹ The value is created by the mimetic desires in others, theoretically increasing the value of the item for those who possess it, and there is research to support this.¹² The theory also explains the existence of Veblen goods.

Here, mimetic dominance, even if unflattering, can explain the creation of a book of obvious interest, and the choice to not make it available generally. It can add a kind specialness to an item that might otherwise just go on a shelf or get tossed out. Though not entirely uncommon in certain, limited printings, the deliberate hand-numbering of each book does accentuate this inaccessibility.

Thankfully, the book is now available

Here, finding a completely unavailable book in my public library is pretty ironic. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of academic culture and exclusive club culture. I think that a club commissioning a history book is fantastic. Giving it away to members as swag is fun. Still, I find it genuinely shocking that such a book would not be generally made available for libraries (especially golf libraries) and research institutions. Again, that I even knew this book existed was due to genuine connections in the golf industry; that I got access to it was due to literal random chance.¹³

I was initially very excited when I realized what I’d found access to (I, too, can be guilty of ascribing value to scarcity). I hope it is clear from this piece, though, that my excitement has faded into disappointment. Even if this might make things fun for collectors,¹⁴ it is something that ultimately leaves me just as confused as it does heartbroken. That historical research, especially, is being conducted in such an anti-academic way is about as disappointing as it gets. There is no happy ending here. It is fairly well known that this type of extreme privacy is not uncommon in the exclusive golf space, and I don’t think that will be changing any time soon.

The only high note I have to end on is that now, this time, we do have access. And It’s a genuinely fascinating read. Go read it.

1. Young, Philip. History of San Francisco Golf Club. Edited by James Frank, book design by Robert Trebus, Golden Age Research, 2014.

Available at the San Francisco Public Library:

Library assigned call number: 796.352 H62993

OCLC number: 1347240377

2. Coopman, Edwin G. History of the San Francisco Golf Club. San Francisco, San Francisco Golf Club, 1978.

Available at the San Francisco Public Library:

Library assigned call number: 367 C788h

Library assigned identifier: 19908576

3. Young 9-28.

4. Young 22.

5. UC Santa Barbra. “Imagery Report: Flight C-6660.” mil.library.ucsb.edu, UC Santa Barbra Library, 2012, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/report/report.php?filed_by=C-6660. Accessed 10 Jan 2025.

6. In the interest of full disclosure here, I did end up with access to a copy for research purposes only. This is only because I somehow ended up more connected in the golf community than I ever thought I would be (and despite my best efforts in some cases). However, as someone trying to create an open research platform for golf courses around the world, it’s incredibly frustrating that the way the system works is that you have to become well connected, make a bunch of noise, and only then does someone even more well-connected pull you aside and say, “oh, you can just use my copy.”

7. Pro Publica. “Nonprofit Explorer, California: San Francisco Golf Club.” projects.propublica.org, Pro Publica, 2024, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/940835710. Accessed 10 Jan 2025.

8. I double-checked the Library of Congress, and they don’t seem to have a copy.

9. I don’t want to get into the weeds of the theory here because I do think the theory is dubious at best. However, I think it is a good framework for explaining human behavior, even if the explanatory power is not rigorous. Obviously a predictive theory holds much more clout. There is research into the subject that I’ll cite further on, but suffice to say, I’m not here to defend René Girard’s formulation of the ideas, though I do see them play out in the world.

On a personal note, I also can’t stand it when writers are like, “and here is this random theory that explains what I’m talking about,” but I’ve sat on this article for six months because I didn’t know how to write it, and well, this is the best I can do. I know it’s hack.

10. Like a book of significant interest that is not available for sale.

11. Simison, Bob. “How Human Psychology Explains Exclusive Brands and Exclusionary Policies.” Chicago Booth, 13 January 2021. Accessed 7 January 2025.

12. Imas, Alex and Madarasz, Kristof, Mimetic Dominance and the Economics of Exclusion: Private Goods in Public Context (2020). CESifo Working Paper No. 8435.

Available at cesifo.org:

https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp8435.pdf

Abstract:

We propose a simple mechanism of mimetic dominance whereby a person’s valuation for consuming an object or possessing an attribute is increasing in others’ unmet desire for it. Such mimetic preferences help explain a host of market anomalies and generate novel predictions in a variety of domains. In bilateral exchange, people exhibit a social endowment effect, and there is an increased demand for goods that become relatively more scarce. A classic monopolist earns excess profit by randomly excluding some people from being able to purchase the product. We test the predictions of the model empirically across several exchange environments. When auctioning a private good, we find that randomly excluding people from the opportunity to bid substantially increases average bids amongst those who retain this option. Furthermore, exclusion leads to greater expected revenue than increasing competition through inclusion. This effect is absent when bidders know that those who are excluded have lower desires for the good. We demonstrate that mimetic preferences matter even for basic exchange: a person’s demand for a good increases substantially when others are explicitly excluded from the opportunity to buy the same kind of good. Mimetic preferences have implications for both price and non-price based methods of exclusion: the model predicts Veblen effects, rationalizes attitudes against redistribution and trade, and provides a novel motive for social stratification and discrimination.

13. To make this point even bleaker, my research strongly suggests that the only reason the San Francisco Public Library even has a copy is that one of the SFGC members died and donated his personal library to the public library. Yes, I did actually do some research on this, because the library’s information makes it fairly clear who the previous owner was. And yes, as far as I can tell, it was acquired a short period after the previous owner passed away.

I only bring this up to really nail down the extent to which genuine, random chance is the only reason that anyone outside of their club has access to this history book.

14. No Laying Up, “Office Hours: Wolfie's 10 Favorite Golf Books,” No Laying Up, YouTube, Oct 25, 2023. Accessed 2025.