Ron Whitten on Shinnecock

[DMoriarty]

I think your point about Seth Raynor being missing is a great point that has been largely unexamined here.

The Raynor angle has been examined repeatedly.  CBM did not build Merion. He helped plan it.  Raynor was involved with the courses CBM/Raynor built.  No one is claiming that CBM directed the construction of Merion.  That was Hugh Wilson. 

David,
Pugh and Hubbard drew a scale map dated November 15, 1910 that purports to show the 117 acres Merion secured at that time in green, and marked "Golf Course".     That's the surveyor I was referring to.

Will you please stop twisting everything?  The Pugh and Hubbard Map (most likely commissioned by HDC) does NOT "purport() to show the 117 acres . . . "   There is no acreage mentioned on the Pugh and Hubbard map whatsoever.   

[MCirba]

Will you please stop twisting everything?  The Pugh and Hubbard Map (most likely commissioned by HDC) does NOT "purport() to show the 117 acres . . . "   There is no acreage mentioned on the Pugh and Hubbard map whatsoever.

David,

Let me try this again. 

On July 1st, 1910, well before any routing and shortly after CBM's visit, Robert Lesley writing for the Merion Site Committee wrote;

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.

On November 15, 1910, a letter from the Site Committee was sent to the members of Merion with the Pugh and Hubbard Land Plan enclosed.   

Here is the letter.   Please read what it says about the enclosed plan of the property showing 117 acres in green and marked "Golf Course". 




Here again is the enclosed Land Plan, drawn to scale by civil engineers Pugh and Hubbard.

[DMoriarty]

I know what the circular to the members said.  My problem is with what YOU SAID.

Merion said the land shown on the map was 117 acres.  But the map as drawn up by Pugh and Hubbard does NOT say anything about 117 acres.  The map indicated that the "Approximate location of the road" which strong suggests that Pugh and Hubbard had NOT measured out the land designated as golf course.  So when you say that "surveyors" had designated that this land measured 117 acres, you are making things up.  That is not in the record.  We don't know if the surveyors had measured it or not.  We know Merion thought the land shown was 117 acres, but this information is not designated on the map itself.

[DMoriarty]

Let me put it another way. Show me where the surveyors "purported" that the land shown as golf course was exactly 117 acres? If you can't show me this in the record, then you can't state it as if it was a fact.

Merion  said it was 117 acres, the surveyors did not say this. You can't just twist it to  pretend it comes directly from the map when it doesn't.

[MCirba]

David,

You don't find it remarkable that Robert Lesley wrote on July 1st 1910 that;

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for
our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we
believe it would be a wise purchase.

and that the combination of the 3 acres of Railroad-owned land "near the clubhouse" that you believe CBM recommended in his June 29th, 1910 letter combined with the 117 acres that Merion secured from HDC in November of 1910 just happened to total 120 acres, as well?

Here again, for easy reference, is Macdonald's letter;

New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for anlaysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.

[DMoriarty]

What the hell are you talking about? The 120 acre figure came from adding 3 to 117. What is the big mystery here?

[MCirba]

Let me put it another way. Show me where the surveyors "purported" that the land shown as golf course was exactly 117 acres? If you can't show me this in the record, then you can't state it as if it was a fact.

Merion  said it was 117 acres, the surveyors did not say this. You can't just twist it to  pretend it comes directly from the map when it doesn't.

David,

Earlier you told us that the map in question with the existence of golf course land paralleling Haverford College was proof that the Francis swap happened before November 15th 1910 and now you're telling us that the dimensions drawn on that map are so questionable as to be essentially not worth the paper they are drafted on.   

Either they are meant to represent the 117 acres of land Merion believed they had secured or they do not.   Why hire a professional surveying company...Civil Engineers...to draw a scale map essentially signifying nothing?

Merion believed that 120 acres would be enough based on what Robert Lesley wrote months before any evidence of planning of a routing taking place;  They proceeded to acquire 117 from HDC, 3 from the Railroad company.   

In the end, the plan they selected required them to buy another 3 acres from HDC for a total of 123 acres.   That plan also required them to exchange land already purchased for land adjoining in an effort to stay close to the original terms agreed to with Haverford Development Company.   This was all determined and approved at the April 19, 1911 Board meeting.

Why this is complicated at this point is beyond me.

More importantly to the larger issues at hand, first you told us this map was essentially proof that the Francis Swap had to have happened prior to then and now you're telling us that the surveyors may not even have actually surveyed and mapped the proposed golf course land at all!?

Merion said the land shown on the map was 117 acres.  But the map as drawn up by Pugh and Hubbard does NOT say anything about 117 acres.  The map indicated that the "Approximate location of the road" which strong suggests that Pugh and Hubbard had NOT measured out the land designated as golf course.  So when you say that "surveyors" had designated that this land measured 117 acres, you are making things up.  That is not in the record.  We don't know if the surveyors had measured it or not. 

[Jud_T]

 

[DMoriarty]

David,

Earlier you told us that the map in question with the existence of golf course land paralleling Haverford College was proof that the Francis swap happened before November 15th 1910 and now you're telling us that the dimensions drawn on that map are so questionable as to be essentially not worth the paper they are drafted on.

This is precisely the type of hyperbolic bullshit which makes these conversation so unproductive.

The map was important, but it does not say anything about 117 acres.  Your fake incredulity doesn't change this fact. 

[MCirba]

David,

It never even occurred to me that Pugh & Hubbard may not even have surveyed and measured the proposed land for the golf course but you may be correct when you wrote;

The map indicated that the "Approximate location of the road" which strong suggests that Pugh and Hubbard had NOT measured out the land designated as golf course.  So when you say that "surveyors" had designated that this land measured 117 acres, you are making things up.  That is not in the record.  We don't know if the surveyors had measured it or not.

After all, every other border was fixed based on what was owned by HDC at that time.

The only border where flexibility was possible was along the western border north of Ardmore Avenue, along the line of the "Approximate Location of Road".   

Frankly, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

From memory, wasn't there a separate price for any additional land over 117 acres previously agreed to, explaining the $7500 purchase price?  And, did any document mention a certain amount of flexibility to change the boundary as needed?  And, didn't MCC end up at 123 acres, which would be 117 + 3 from HDC + 3 from the RR?

Lastly, while the map doesn't say 117 acres, it appears the land contract does, no?  Would there be any land contract that wasn't accompanied by a property description?  And, that is why it had formerly change later?

[DMoriarty]

As if it is not bad enough to have just Mike making things up that have no basis in the factual record, now Brauer is going to make up more stuff?  I can't keep up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just asking questions, Dave!  I did go back and re-read your essay to make sure I wasn't mis-stating your position, but the two questions above simply come from memory of 7 years of discussion here........

[MCirba]

Mike,

From memory, wasn't there a separate price for any additional land over 117 acres previously agreed to, explaining the $7500 purchase price?  And, did any document mention a certain amount of flexibility to change the boundary as needed?  And, didn't MCC end up at 123 acres, which would be 117 + 3 from HDC + 3 from the RR?

Lastly, while the map doesn't say 117 acres, it appears the land contract does, no?  Would there be any land contract that wasn't accompanied by a property description?  And, that is why it had formerly change later?

Jeff,

Here's the document related to changing the boundary as needed from what I copied and posted here earlier;

On December 21^st, 1910, Merion’s counsel T. DeWitt Cuyler sent the following letter to Merion President Allen Evans;
 
Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.

Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa

My dear Sir:
Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,
Inaccordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letterfrom the Haverford Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.

I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.

In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.

I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
 
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.

Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler

Careful readers will note that Mr. Cuyler states that it ”was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd’s name, so that the lines can be revised subsequently” as the boundaries (along the western edge north of Ardmore Avenue) had not yet been determined.
 
In fact, by the time of that letter, Mr. Lloyd had already taken title of the entire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate properties and had done so on December 10^th, 1910.   Thus, any further dealings for the negotiation of that land could be, and in fact needed to be done through Mr. Lloyd, who represented both sides of the transaction.   You’ll recall that Richard Francis rode to Lloyd’s house on his midnight ride and it was appropriate to do so as Lloyd held the title to the property and would need to approve any land exchanges, particularly any exchanges that required additional property for golf.

The previous month in an exchange of letters (also posted here earlier today) between Joseph Connell of HDC and Allen Evans of Merion, Merion agreed to secure 117 acres of property.  (see my post #205 from today for the actual letters) 

All of this became moot when H.G. Lloyd, acting under Cuyler's advice, purchased the entire 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and 21 acres of the Dallas Estate.   This was evidently done so that boundaries could be revised subsequent to the design of the golf course.

As far as the $2,500 price per acre, on November 15th 1910, H.G. Lloyd sent a stock option opportunity letter to Merion members that included the following, also posted in full earlier today (bolding mine);

There will be acquired by the Company, five tracts of land, aggregating approximately
338 acres, so that after the sale of 117 acres for the Golf course, there will remain
about 221 acres, some of which has been improved. The average cost of the remaining
land will be less than $2,500 per acre. Of this amount, about $1,000 per acre will be
paid in cash and the balance remain on mortgage. It is estimated that the $300,000
Capital will provide ample funds for such development work as may be necessary,
including road building, etc.

Horatio G. Lloyd,
Chestnut and Fifth Sts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Thanks, should have looked more than a few posts back. So, it looks like there was not a defined 117 acres and that it would be determined later.  Of course, this strongly suggests that the routing was either not in place, or far from final.  I believe the latter, but I know David believes there was one in place.

Now, as to my recollection that any additional land over the 117 would be at a higher price?  Am I making stuff up about that, or is my aging memory still somewhat still in place? LOL

[MCirba]

Jeff,

I don't particuarly recall such an agreement although Lloyd did mention that any HDC real estate land sold to Merion members beyond this 117 acres secured for golf was seemingly set a a max price of $2,500 per acre.   That amount is also why I feel confident that the 3 acres additional mentioned in the MCC April 19th, 1911 Minutes that needed to be purchased at $7,500 referred to HDC held land under Lloyd's control.

If a routing had been in place by December 1910 I'm sure Lloyd wouldn't have needed to purchase the entire 161 acres but instead Merion would have simply purchased only the 117 they had been routed on that they had agreed to the prior month.

And yes, although both our aging memories may be failing the end result was 117 acres secured in November 1910, plus 3 acres leased railroad land, plus 3 acres additional from HDC approved in April 1911 and purchased in July 1911 for a total of 123 acres.

Thanks.

[JESII]

Mike,


Is it your belief that Merion's Board approved the purchase of 3 acres for $7,500 and then HGL decided to pay that $7,500 himself to HDC? I am under the assumption that he essentially ran HDC by this point but the question remains...


If so, why would he/they have gone through the exercise of requesting the funds from the board? It makes no sense.


If not, what happened to that $7,500?

[MCirba]

Mike,


Is it your belief that Merion's Board approved the purchase of 3 acres for $7,500 and then HGL decided to pay that $7,500 himself to HDC? I am under the assumption that he essentially ran HDC by this point but the question remains...


If so, why would he/they have gone through the exercise of requesting the funds from the board? It makes no sense.


If not, what happened to that $7,500?

Jim,

I honestly don't know.   

What we do know is that he essentially controlled both sides of the fence in the transaction, although under fiduciary obligation to each respective group.   

Did he eat the cost personally?   Perhaps.

Did he convince the other officers of HDC that the sacrifice of this additional acreage would be all to the common good and they would re-coup their money through the excellence of the golf course plan that had the ringing endorsement of CB Macdonald?   Recall that HDC first told Merion that they would be willing to sell "100 acres or whatever would be required" for the golf course.   

The record isn't clear but we KNOW they bought 120.01 acres of HDC land in July, 1911, which was 3 more acres than their original agreement of 117 acres in November 1910. 

[MCirba]

Jim,

Recall as well that Francis told us the acquisition of the Railroad land preceded his Land exchange brainstorm.  He said they were able to fit the first 13 holes through the aquisition of a little land north of Ardmore Ave. but the last five were another matter.

[DMoriarty]

You guys conveniently keep forgetting the obvious.  There was "approximately three acres additional" which still needed to be acquired at the time of the Thompson Resolution.  It was the RR land, next to the clubhouse. The land CBM and HJW had suggested that Merion acquire the summer before.  It had still not been acquired as of April 1911. 

It would have made no sense for Merion to have resolved to purchase three acres from HDC for over 3X the agreed upon price.  It would have made no sense for Lloyd to have allowed this to come up before the Board if he was just going to finesse it behind the scenes.  It would have made no sense for Lloyd to steal the land from HDC on behalf of Merion despite his fiduciary duty to HDC, and no facts suggest this happened. It would have made no sense for Lloyd to pay for it himself and there are certainly no facts suggesting this happened. It would have made no sense for the Board to resolve to pay HDC an extra $7500 acres but then not pay HDC the extra $7500. Likewise it would make no sense for Francis to have referred to the transaction as a "swap" of land for land if it was in fact a sale of land. 

In short, the theory that the "approximately three acres additional" refers to the Francis swap makes no sense.   

But it does make sense that the "approximately three acres additional" would have been referring to the RR land.  It had yet to be acquired, and it doesn't show up as golf course land on the Nov. map.   

This is typical. You guys ignore the obvious answer and stretch and twist the facts to fit your convoluted theories.  Even the Fakers realized that the "three acres additional" most likely referred to the RR land, yet you guys go on insisting it must have been something else.

The funny thing is, it doesn't matter anyway.  Even if the Thompson resolution explicitly referred to the Francis land swap (and it doesn't), so what?  The date the board approved the transaction does NOT tell us the date Francis came up with the idea. 

Again, "approximately three acres additional" of RR land next to the clubhouse is illustrative.  Merion didn't secure this land until July of 1911, after (I think) mentioning it in April 1911.   So should we assume that Merion never considered adding this land until April or perhaps even July of 1911?  This would be a faulty assumption, because the previous summer CBM and HJW had already recommended that Merion acquire the land next to the clubhouse.

Mike is trying to draw a similarly faulty assumption here.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Recall as well that Francis told us the acquisition of the Railroad land preceded his Land exchange brainstorm.  He said they were able to fit the first 13 holes through the aquisition of a little land north of Ardmore Ave. but the last five were another matter.

Mike,  Once again, you are again playing fast and lose with the facts. 

Francis did NOT tell us that "the acquisition of the Railroad land preceded his Land exchange brainstorm."  The RR property was not acquired until July of 1911, after construction had begun and months after CBM and HJW had already approved the final routing plan.  After the road had been built.  After the swap had taken place.

As for when Merion first considered using the RR land for the golf course, the earliest mention we have goes back to June of 1910 when CBM and HJW suggested that they acquire the land next to the clubhouse.

So what does that tell us about the timing of the Francis Swap?  Not much, except that it was probably sometime after CBM and HJW's visit in the summer of 1910.

[ADDED:  It is pretty funny that in my previous post I held up the potential misinterpretation regarding the timing of the acquisition of the RR land as an obviously faulty assumption, and, as if to make my argument for me, at the same time Mike goes right ahead and tries to make this exact faulty assumption. Thanks for helping prove my point Mike.]
 

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I just noticed your post No. 234:

It never even occurred to me that Pugh & Hubbard may not even have surveyed and measured the proposed land for the golf course but you may be correct . . .

You are talking about two things here - surveyed and measured - whereas I only mentioned one.  What I wrote was that we don't know whether they measured out the acreage on the land designated as golf course. If they did, then they did not not indicate that it was 117 acres on the plan itself.  My point was that it was Merion who said it was 117 acres, not the surveyors.

As for what they had surveyed at this point, I don't know for certain, and I don't think you do either. But my guess is that by this point the two sides had negotiated the approximate location of the road, and that the surveyors set out the approximate location on the map, and perhaps even in the field. (And of course both sides left flexibility for the exact boundary to change.)

In other words, I think that at this point, the two sides had identified the subject of the transaction. Merion knew what they were buying and HDC knew what they were selling, subject to some adjustment to the border later. Whether or not they had accurately measured that acreage of the subject property, we just do not know.  Identifying property through stakes and surveys is sometimes easier than exactly measuring the acreage.

As for how they came up with 117 acre figure, we don't know for certain, but I'll concede that the most logical explanation may be that they may have used a mechanical planimeter on the Nov. 1910 map (or similar map) to calculate the acreage based on the approximate location of the road.  I've tried to replicate this process by overlaying the 1910 map on google earth so as to get an accurate measure, but unfortunately (even using my flat scan of the original) the points don't quite line up.  That said, doing the best I can to line up the map, the measure of the golf course land seems to be very close to 117 acres. Maybe Bryan has a better measure somewhere in the archives, but I don't recall it if he has one.

[Bryan Izatt]

It's nice to see that the Merion minute documents that were top secret private six years ago have now been posted.  What changed in those intervening six years?  Is there anything new in this debate that has changed anybody's position?


I see the word "acquired" used regarding the RR land.  I thought there was agreement that it was leased all the way up into the 1970's.  I don't recall a date ever being put on when the lease began.


Re the 117 acre parcel that was announced in November, I don't think anybody knows precisely where that was to be, or even whether it was just a placeholder amount while they figured out the routing and design and knew the precise amount and location that they needed.  In July they bought 120.01 acres.  Since we don't know where the 117 acres was, it is impossible to know where the extra 3 acres was.  It is unclear from the Thompson resolution whether they were talking about the RR land or the cost of adding 3 acres from HDC to the agreed 117 acres.


Re David's last question, I did, six years ago, overlay the land plan on Google Earth and measured the area.  It's not accurate, but my best estimate at the time was that the land plan showed 124 acres.  My guess is that Pugh and Hubbard had not, in November, surveyed GHR to get precisely 117 acres since the routing and design wasn't known at that time and Merion and HDC had purposely left the western boundary fluid until they knew precisely where the course was going to go.  By July, Pugh and Hubbard had surveyed GHR (precisely where it is today) for the deed, and according to the deed the road was already in existence by then.


In the picture below the red line is the approximate land plan road, while the blue line is the surveyed road from the deed (and as it exists today).


Looking at the plan again, it is hard not to think that Francis' swap of land for the 15th green and 16th tee is not already approximately on the plan despite Mike's claims of "vast" differences in the measurements.
   

[Rich Goodale]

Just asking questions, Dave!  I did go back and re-read your essay to make sure I wasn't mis-stating your position, but the two questions above simply come from memory of 7 years of discussion here........

Jeff

I haven't got the time nor the stomach to go back and re-read the 7-year old essay, but I do recall my participation in the debate then, which was to question the authors' conclusion that the use of the term "laying out the course" meant construction rather than planning (i.e. routing and further design).  I argued then, with proof, that in the early 20th century the phrase "to lay out" did mean "planning" rather than construction but was cryit doon by the authors and their henchmen.  Well, from the follwing minutes posted above, it seems that "laying out" did mean planning rather than construction, at least to the people involved in cereating  the new Merion course, from start to finish.

"At the April 19, 1911 Board Meeting, the following was entered into the Minutes;
 
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses."

Surely, 5 courses were not "constructed" prior to the meeting with CBM, if "laying out" meant "constructing."  To argue this would be laughable.  To me it seems obviously that Lesley was reporting that the committee created and brought 5 possible routings to CBM, for his opinions on each, including which of the 5 was "best" in his opinion.

Rich

PS--in the quote above it is also obvious from the later context that "his plans" refers to CBM's plan for NGLA, not some plans he may have created for Merion.

PPS--all this IMHO, of course........

[MCirba]

Rich,

Similarly, the term "construction" was very commonly used at that time to indicate both design and build, as in "Construction Committee".   None other than Donald Ross and C.B. Macdonald made extensive use of the term during those years to indicate golf course architecture.   I'd be happy to offer examples.