Guys,
I have been neglecting other more important things for about a month now, and there is absolutely no way I can keep up with this stuff. I apologize for not covering matters as requested but believe it or not I try to put some thought into my posts and I just do not have time to do most of the comments justice. I'll try to cover what I can, but I have to be close to then end of this back and forth.
I am not even sure that my last round of responses were posted in the right threads.
JES,
I told you I would respond to your questions online, but for the life of me I cannot even find them except for what you sent me in IM. So I hope you don't mind me posting an excerpt from the IM, because I am sure others might be thinking the same thing.
JES wrote:
It seems to me that the Merion Site Committeemen focussed in on this general area of land soon after they were formed...in 1909...and were trying to 'lay out' golf holes where they could...as you and I would...almost immediately.
I don't know that they were appointed in 1909. They may have been but I can't remember if this is fact or legend. If you or anyone else has the support for this, please refresh my memory.
Whenever they were appointed, I do not think there is any reason to think they found this property in 1909. First, both the board and committee note that there were a number of other possible sites, and given that they chose this one there is a good chance it was last in line.
Second, if Merion was already busy monkeying with the site, then the Barker routing doesnt really make sense. Why would HDC bring in Barker if Merion was already planning their own course?
Third (and this is related to the second) I know that Mike and TEPaul have presented the 1909 involvement as if it was a certainty, but I have found no evidence of it. They have made the assumption that Haverford Development Company (HDC) and Lloyd/Merion were one in the same but this conclusion is thus far just not supported by the record. Not only that but there are a number of factors that hint against it.
First, while HDC was formed in June of 1909, there is no real evidence that Lloyd was at all involved at this time. HDC seems to have been incorporated in conjunction with the conveyance of a 70 acre parcel, north of College Ave, to HDC. This was not an arm's length purchase but essentially a transfer (for $1) changing the titleholder from a trustee acting on behalf of a number of investors to a corporation. HDC may have been created to consolidate the interests of in two parcels the second property being the Johnson Farm property. Iy looks like these two groups of investors with overlapping interests put their eggs into one basket and that basket was HDC.
One important fact is that while this transaction occurred in 1909, the two respective parcels were actually purchased by the groups of overlapping investors in
1907, not 1909. And while they likely consolidated interests in 1909, there is no evidence that Lloyd stepped into the fray at this time..
I should note that the Philadelphia and Western RR began service in 1907, so suddenly this beautiful land was much more accessible for those working in the city. Most likely these guys bought up land in the hopes of eventually capitalizing on the suburbanization of this area, and this is frankly what happened.
After HDC's incorporation the PI listed some prominent stockholders in HDC but Lloyd's name is not there. Also the 1909 deed lists the investors who were conveying their property for a buck, and while there is overlap with the names in the paper, Lloyd is still not mentioned.
So why do we hear that Lloyd was involved in in 1909?
1. The Nov. 1910 newspaper clipping that appears to be from the developers states that the developers got a tip that Merion needed land and so they began to put this land together. Some have assumed that this must have been Lloyd and that he rode in and bought everything, but there is just no reason to believe this other than it is convenient. The fact that 210 acres were already controlled by the entities that became HDC weighs against this version, as does the lack of evidence of their involvement.
2. The June 1909 transaction was thought to have involved the golf course land, and somehow it was just assumed that HDC, Lloyd, and Haverford were one and the same. In fact, last round of these discussions right after Wayne first located this deed, TEPaul repeatedly posted that Wayne had found a deed that proved that Merion had purchased the property in 1909, and this became his key support for his contention that this whole process, including Wilson's trip, must have occurred much earlier than we previously knew. TEPaul has referenced a number of times in these converastions as well.
Problem is, the deed said no such thing. For one thing, the conveyance did not even involve the golf course land. [I am not trying to imply that anyone was being sinister here. The deed is handwritten and extremely difficult to read, and it is easy to see how it could have been misinterpreted, especially since it is an adjacent property.] After comparing the description with the old atlases I am virtually certain that the deed refers to a 70 acre parcel north of College, and think Wayne and I now pretty much in agreement on this.
For another thing, on the face of the deed, neither Lloyd nor Merion had anything to do with the conveyance. I guess TEPaul must have just assumed that HDC and Merion were one and the same.
That is a long winded way of saying that the 1909 rumor has been floating around this website for a couple of years now, and I still do not think there is any evidence at all to support it. I'd be glad to consider facts to the contrary, but I just do not know of any.
It appears by your essay that Barker was brought in by non-involved speculators to create a value in the land they owned and wanted to sell (ie: "see, a golf course can fit right here..."). Short of any direct connection between Connell and HDC/MCC and the mechanics of the Site Committee I would say he was ill informed as to the land usable for golf. A routing on the 100 acres you carved out on the Google Map makes it impossible for me to envision one resembling what actually went into the ground. Hence, I don't think Barker should be discussed at all and is merely a red herring on your part to make it clear that there was a routing plan completed prior to the 11/15 date.
I too cannot imagine that whatever was done on 100 acres could have been a championship course, much less anything like Merion, but I am not willing to dismiss it outright. One thing I didnt get into in the essay in part to avoid more speculation was just how different things were prior to 1910, especially in Philadelphia. I don't think the concept of a 100 acre championship course was that unusual. As for what if anything could have survived from his routing it is possible that some of it (like green sites for example) could have been used, but I dont know. But he did a routing of Merion, likely the first one done, and ignoring it would have been negligent.
To me, you too closely connected Barker (and his routing) to CBM...so when I discredit Barker, CBM loses some credibility. I am not taking him out of the picture, just returning him to the role the Wilson's credited him with, and not much more.
Not sure what you mean here. I speak of them together because I dont know the details and do not want to eliminate one or the other without reason, and I don't think I have reason. But they didnt work together and I have no way of knowing for sure if M&W liked or followed much of anything done by Barker. I also note that M&W could have been working off the barker sketch, but that doesnt really mean they agreed with it.
Maybe I am missing something.
Hope this helps on the the timing issues.
DM