[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  You asked me to engage in a point-by-point analysis of the public domain documents related to the Francis swap issue, and repeatedly insisted that that you would not be "adversarial." While I have addressed your 'points' many times in the past, I nonetheless provided you with a brief four point summary of our differences on the issue. 

Your response has gone on for paragraph after paragraph, post after post, page after page, yet most of it amounts to:
1)  Hostility, antagonism, and personal attacks.
2)  Continued improper reliance on source material that you and Wayne are unwilling or unable to produce for review or critique.
3)  Pointless and unsupported repetition of well-worn rhetoric.

And you did not even make it 24 hours to break your promise to quit relying on the source material without giving us a chance to refute it. 

This is exactly why there is no point in continuing this "discussion."

[TEPaul]

"I sense some frustration from him and a few others about you posting that you have docs that prove this or that and tell us what they mean, but don't share the substance."

Jeff:

OK, I've already been through that on here yesterday or so. I said I'm sorry I did that and I said so on here but I can't take it back and so I won't do any of that anymore on here.

I find it pretty interesting that David Moriarty gets so hysterical over Wayne or I posting our opinions of that material after analyzing it that pretty thoroughly. That pretty much proves all he thinks we're EVER trying to do here is prove him wrong and embarrass him. God only knows how many times recently he's said on here that everything we post about that material is just trying to deceive everyone.  

But I guess it's just human nature that he would say that as we've sure made no secret of what we think of his opinions and premises and conclusion on that essay. Total historical revisionism, in my opinion, and not even done accidently. In my opinion, he has a couple of definite agendas going on here on this website re; Philly courses and people here and he also has a pretty distorted conception of what Macdonald was back then, in my opinion.

Get all that together with a pretty clever mind and you can get some remarkably specious and syllogistic reasoning that can SOME fool people into thinking it might be true.

The problem is, as he's admitted on here a number of times he really doesn't know the details of Merion's history that well and so when he tried to just shift a date and such out of its chronology the simple "timelining" of a number of other events that were part of it are inevitably going to trip him up and prove him wrong and that's exactly what's happening with this measuring excercise with these two maps.

But of course he won't admit that he's wrong. He never has and I doubt he ever will no matter how outrageous or even laughable his premises and conclusion and answers and explanations on these threads are.

But, in my opinion, these minute meetings will completely disprove the credibility of his shifting the dates of events unless he's going to claim next that, in his opinion, the entire board was in there lying to one another.

Even that would not surprise me from him at this point. The man is desperate, there's no question of it and that's about all that's left for him to do, at this point.

The fact that so many are still going along with this silly gig of his is what's surprising us.  

But if he or you or some others don't want any of our opinions on the meaning of that material before having it transcribed somewhere, than so be it, I guess. So, there's no real reason to even continue to give any of our opinions, right?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I wasn't trying to jump you (a la Dodge City) on that last post. 

For those of us who are curious, it would be great to see whatever you have permission to post, snippet or otherwise. The actual documents don't stir much controversy.  Opinions seem to. 

I agree that no matter how much documentation might turn up, there will still be some "connecting the dots" (i.e. opinions) as to exactly what they mean, so I guess giving opinions is inevitable.  But the more documents, the better the historical record, whatever that turns out to be.

Perhaps its best to let it die, even if some are still interested.  Or, continue it on a documentation only basis, rather than letting the personal animosity that has developed creep back in. 

Oh, who am I kidding.  Starting over probably can't happen.  Cancel one request for documents!

[Bryan Izatt]

Just for me to close the loop on this one, and hopefully kill the thread (since we don't want Jeff to think he's the only thread killer around  ), here's my assessment of the "evidence".

The 1908 RR map shows a rectangular block of land at the north end of the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co.  (reverse) L property that is 200 X 335 yards.

Sometime after October 1908 and before November, 1910, someone (?) retains Pugh and Hubbard, Civil Engineers to draw up a land plan for the golf course and housing development.  They show a roughly triangular piece at the north end of the (reverse) L between the "approximate location of road" and the Haverford College property line that measures 100 yards at the base by 315 yards to the apex at College Rd.

By 1913, the RR map shows the dimensions of the property at the north end of the (reverse) L as 130 yards across the base by 210 yards up the eastern Haverford College property line with a curvilinear left side paralleling the road.  I have overlaid the current course on that map and it fits, however I can't post it here since the RR map is copyrighted.

Now, we have Francis saying:

"I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use?
          Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that, the green could be built as it is today."

DM infers that the 130 X 190 yard land is as shown on the November 1910 map notwithstanding that that piece measures 100 X 315 yards.  He's also inferring that the approximate location of the road was just that, approximate, on that map,  and that the piece of land on that map is the 130 X 190 piece that Francis was talking about.

TEP is inferring that, since the 130 X 190 parcel doesn't match exactly the triangular property on the November 1910 map, the real land swap occurred after that, and was for an additional 30 yards  slice along the western boundary where the "approximate location of road" is on the 1910 map.  This begs the question of why Francis called it a 130 X 190 piece of land, when 100 X 315 was already there in the 1910 plan.

I think both sides here are drawing inferences that are not entirely supportable given the current "evidence" on the table.

Perhaps one of our esteemed researchers might check where Francis lived from 1909 until 1913.  He says he rode a bicycle about a mile to Gates' place with his idea.  On the 1913 RR map there are no estates named for Francis and there does not appear to be any subdivision housing within a mile of Gates' place.  If someone could check deeds from that time frame to place Gates and Francis, it might narrow down the possible range of dates (assuming that long after the fact, Francis remembered how far he rode the bike  )

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

If I'm not mistaken, the Pugh and Hubbard map is dated 11/15/1910.  Please check the bottom left hand corner of the drawing.

It is also carefully drawn to scale and was sent to by the Merion governors to the membership asking for their support in buying said land for a new golf course.   The "hypothethcial road" delineated the property boundary between the golf course land and the real estate component, which was owned by Haverford Development Company, a company that the Merion members were also given opportunity to buy into with the same offer.

The widest part of the triangle on that map is roughly 90 yards wide, not 130 yards.

Why would they have sent a precisely drawn scale drawing and then make an error of that magnitude on what they were asking the membership to purchase?   Could that not have been a document that would have held up in court should someone not be happy with a misrepresentation?

If the golf course routing was determined at that point, and the Francis Land Swap had already taken place, then why would they not represent that accurately?   Why hire Civil engineers to create a detailed scale map for the prospectus they were sending to members if they were not intending to have it be an accurate representation?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Thanks for that post on the comparison of the two maps. I've measured the 1913 map a number of times, and again this morning and I get the base of the triangle on the 1913 map at around 125 yards wide (a little less than 400 feet), not 100 yards. I suppose if you increase that base with a bit more from a small land exchange with Haverford College land on the east in the late 1920s it would increase to around 130 yards at the base which is apparently what Richard Francis was looking at when he wrote his story in 1950. After-all, this is what engineer/surveyor's (which he was) do---eg measure thinks exactly. 


MikeC:

I agree with you that it is not worthwhile, at this point, to try to just dismiss this entire issue by once again claiming that someone got things wrong (in this case, the surveyor's measurement of the base of that 1910 triangle). It seems to me the only reason the other side of this discussion does that is to just try to maintain their position without being willing to deal with an apparent reality such as the base of that triangle on the 1910 plan really was only 100 yards at the base and too narrow to fit those holes up into.

[Mike_Cirba]

The other question I have for those who suggest that this was simply a "hypothethical" road on the November 15, 1910 map is;

Why were the smooth curvilenear lines of the westward portion of that road eventually built accurately to scale and the east side (the golf course side) obviously distorted and reconfigured? 

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

As for the mile bike ride that already has been looked into. Francis lived around the station and Lloyd's Allgates was not ready for occupation until 1912. Apparently before that Lloyd lived on Bucks Lane (about a mile from the Francis' house).

"This begs the question of why Francis called it a 130 X 190 piece of land, when 100 X 315 was already there in the 1910 plan."

It is my feeling that Francis called it a 130 X 190 piece of land in his story because those are the dimensions they needed  to have (and got)  to fit those two holes up into. From the way he phrased his remark it may look to some that the entire 130 X 190 dimension of the triangle had previously been land that was not part of the proposed golf ground at all but it is my belief that is not necessarily the case. It most certainly could have been a triangle that was previously part of the proposed golf ground (and up to six months before a final course plan and his land swap idea) and that the problem with it was that it was simply a triangle within the proposed golf ground that was too narrow (100yards) to fit the two holes up into, not to even mention the fact that it was too long (app. 315 yards) for their needs for those two holes---eg they only needed about 190 yards from the base of the top of the triangle and not 315 yards. Matter of fact, they likely exchanged the top 100+ yards in the very narrow top of that triangle back to the residential development for proposed development land to the west of the present 15th hole.

The fact is this is precisely the way that existing triangle's width and height was reconfigured dimensionally.

And to go back again to why Francis' story says the triangle swap was 130 X 190. It seems to me if an engineer is telling a story about that kind of dimensional resolution almost 40 years after the fact he was probably talking about what they needed and what they eventually got and not what it had once been (100 X 315) previously, if in fact he could even remember what the dimensions of the triangle had once been 40 years before. When he wrote the story in 1950 he may've even been taking into consideration the present width of the triangle at that time which had been slightly increased with a small land transfer with Haverford College in the late 1920s that increased the base of the triangle slightly to the east apparently to open up the 16th tee shot more.

Bryan, again, thanks for your analysis, to date, of this Francis land swap event. This is precisely the way and the manner in which I have always hoped these kinds of issues and events on the creation of Merion East could be discussed on this website, and this is why I mentioned your name (among others) in a previous post as a good candidate to try to do it. Your inclusion above comparing the inferences of both sides of the discussion is a good one. You're a good moderator.

[Andy Hughes]

I find it pretty interesting that David Moriarty gets so hysterical over Wayne or I posting our opinions of that material after analyzing it that pretty thoroughly. That pretty much proves all he thinks we're EVER trying to do here is prove him wrong and embarrass him. God only knows how many times recently he's said on here that everything we post about that material is just trying to deceive everyone. 
.....................
But, in my opinion, these minute meetings will completely disprove the credibility of his shifting the dates of events unless he's going to claim next that, in his opinion, the entire board was in there lying to one another.

Tom, I may be the only one around who has actually enjoyed these Merion threads.  Other than the personal ugliness, it has all proven very interesting, informative and educational. I have learned quite a bit from you, David, Wayne, Mike and others.

But look what you wrote above.  You continue to make comments and definitive statements based on your reading of documents that only you and Wayne are privy to.  While I have no doubt there is no malice on your part and that you sincerely believe your conclusions to be accurate, can you honestly fault DM for taking it with a grain of salt until he and others have had a chance to see the same documents? In his mind (and rightly so, I suspect), DM has seen you make definitive comments based on documentation not available to all that turned out not to be exactly as stated (i.e. the land deeds).

If DM was to post tomorrow that CBM's descendents had turned over his diaries and letters to him, and he mentioned finding a letter from Wilson that thanked CBM profusely for creating the routing for Merion, would you take it as gospel or would you insist on seeing the letter? Would it 'prove' you were not after the truth if you did not accept DM's interpretation of that letter?

[TEPaul]

Andy:

What would you rather have on here----eg that we just say nothing more and that someday this information gets onto something like the USGA architecture archive or into the Merion archives with the actual transcribed meeting minutes OR we mention on here what our OPINIONS on it are and what we think it means without the transcribed material? We're not going to say our opinions are proof or fact at this time.

I mean David Moriarty has said a number of time on here that all our opinions are is a constant attempt to deceive everyone.

We don't believe our opinions are that at all, but if everyone else on here feels they are then of course we will say no more.

The opinions of most everyone on this website are mostly JUST their opinions on things because most of the time there really isn't anything available to absolutely PROVE it as fact. Are we supposed to carry on in this website like some courtroom where we can't offer our opinions without offering proof first? I certainly hope not or this site won't ever have much to report, talk about and discuss.

We wouldn't mind offering our opinions on some of these things but we will only offer them as OUR OPINIONS and not proof or fact. When some form of proof is made available on here, at some point, then the issue of whether it appears to be fact or not can and should be considered at that time.

David Moriarty has offered a number of premises and a conclusion in his essay that he seems to pass off as fact supported by what he says is proof but of course we don't agree at all that it is. We only think it is his opinion and that he should have said so very clearly.

We wouldn't mind offering our OPINIONS on things were aware of not as fact but just our opinions but if no one cares about our opinions on some of those things, then fine, we won't offer them. That's OK with us too.



"If DM was to post tomorrow that CBM's descendents had turned over his diaries and letters to him, and he mentioned finding a letter from Wilson that thanked CBM profusely for creating the routing for Merion, would you take it as gospel or would you insist on seeing the letter? Would it 'prove' you were not after the truth if you did not accept DM's interpretation of that letter?"

I would be interested in hearing his opinion on what those things said even before he made whatever he had available and I would expect him to say it was JUST his opinion on what he had, as we are. As you know most on here, including Merion, wished he'd only done that with whatever he had available to him to write his essay. You've seen what others have said and felt about that. The way he cast it all we thought he must have had a Macdonald routing of Merion but apparently not---not yet anyway. 

[Andy Hughes]

We wouldn't mind offering our OPINIONS on things were aware of not as fact but just our opinions but if no one cares about our opinions on some of those things, then fine, we won't offer them. That's OK with us too.

Tom, I can obviously only speak for myself and not for the board as a whole.  As I said, I have learned much from you and others and have always valued the contributions you, Mike, David and all the rest make to gca.  I would never ask you not to share your opinions or knowledge--first, it is not my place to do so, and second because the board would be poorer for it.

But that is not the point I was trying to make.  My issue is with your use of Merion documents to argue with DM, while not allowing him and others to see the same documents. I fully understand why Wayne has taken the position he has vis a vis the documentation and think it is the correct and proper course. But I do not believe it is according to Hoyle for you to then turn around and say the meeting minutes say this or that or prove this or that. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, maybe it's a mistaken reading on your part.

But that is a distinct issue from you posting your opinions or from your unique experience or knowledge.

David Moriarty has offered a number of premises and a conclusion in his essay that he seems to pass off as fact supported by what he says is proof but of course we don't agree at all that it is.

Has he shared the documentation he used to build his case, or has he given you his reading of the documentation and expected you to accept that?

The way he cast it all we thought he must have had a Macdonald routing of Merion but apparently not---not yet anyway.

Keep hope alive! 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

If I'm not mistaken, the Pugh and Hubbard map is dated 11/15/1910.  Please check the bottom left hand corner of the drawing.

Yes, that's the date.  My point was that they drew it sometime before that date and that someone retained them to measure the property and draw the plan before that.  I doubt they got the commission, went out and measured, and drew it all on November 15, 1910.

It is also carefully drawn to scale and was sent to by the Merion governors to the membership asking for their support in buying said land for a new golf course.   The "hypothethcial road" I haven't seen anyone claim before that the road was called "hypothethcial" (sic)   delineated the property boundary between the golf course land and the real estate component, which was owned by Haverford Development Company, a company that the Merion members were also given opportunity to buy into with the same offer.

The widest part of the triangle on that map is roughly 90 yards wide, not 130 yards.  I measured it several times and it's 100 yards, not 90.

Why would they have sent a precisely drawn scale drawing and then make an error of that magnitude on what they were asking the membership to purchase?   Could that not have been a document that would have held up in court should someone not be happy with a misrepresentation? 

The "precisely drawn scale drawing" clearly states that the it shows the "approximate location of road" not the precise location.  I can infer nothing about why they drew it as approximate.  As to court, I have no idea.  Seems like full disclosure to me.  If I had read it at the time, I suppose I would have understood that the road might be there or it might have been configured a little differently.  And being a wary consumer, I might have asked what the meaning of "approximate" was..

If the golf course routing was determined at that point, and the Francis Land Swap had already taken place, then why would they not represent that accurately?   Why hire Civil engineers to create a detailed scale map for the prospectus they were sending to members if they were not intending to have it be an accurate representation?

I don't know the answer to the first question and have seen no documentation from which we might infer an answer.  To the second question, I don't know why, but they did.  Or do you think that "approximate" means something else than the obvious?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan:

Thanks for that post on the comparison of the two maps. I've measured the 1913 map a number of times, and again this morning and I get the base of the triangle on the 1913 map at around 125 yards wide (a little less than 400 feet), not 100 yards. I suppose if you increase that base with a bit more from a small land exchange with Haverford College land on the east in the late 1920s it would increase to around 130 yards at the base which is apparently what Richard Francis was looking at when he wrote his story in 1950. After-all, this is what engineer/surveyor's (which he was) do---eg measure thinks exactly. 

My bad, it was late and I mis-typed.  I measured the 1913 map at 130 yards, not 100.  I've edited my post above.


MikeC:

I agree with you that it is not worthwhile, at this point, to try to just dismiss this entire issue by once again claiming that someone got things wrong (in this case, the surveyor's measurement of the base of that 1910 triangle). It seems to me the only reason the other side of this discussion does that is to just try to maintain their position without being willing to deal with an apparent reality such as the base of that triangle on the 1910 plan really was only 100 yards at the base and too narrow to fit those holes up into.

Regardless of what it measures, I don't think either side is on solid ground inferring what they want to infer from the maps and measurement and what they mean to David's greater hypothesis.

[TEPaul]

"But that is not the point I was trying to make.  My issue is with your use of Merion documents to argue with DM, while not allowing him and others to see the same documents. I fully understand why Wayne has taken the position he has vis a vis the documentation and think it is the correct and proper course. But I do not believe it is according to Hoyle for you to then turn around and say the meeting minutes say this or that or prove this or that. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, maybe it's a mistaken reading on your part.

But that is a distinct issue from you posting your opinions or from your unique experience or knowledge."



Andy:

Again, if this website does not want me to offer my opinions on some things I'm aware of before first putting what I'm aware of physically on here that's fine. But if they do want my opinions on some things I'm aware of without putting proof of them on here first I'm willing to consider doing that. What I don't necessarily want is for David Moriarty to hold this website hostage from my opinions, or anyone else's, simply because he wants to see something himself first before someone offers their opinion on it. I hope that's clear enough.

[Bryan Izatt]

The other question I have for those who suggest that this was simply a "hypothethical" road on the November 15, 1910 map is;

Who are these people who suggest that the road was "hypothetical"?  Your the only person who has called it hypothetical (unless I missed another reference in the myriad posts).  The precise engineers called it precisely "approximate", meaning it'll be around here somewhere.

Why were the smooth curvilenear lines of the westward portion of that road eventually built accurately to scale and the east side (the golf course side) obviously distorted and reconfigured? 

I don't understand your point of east vs west portions of the road.  Do you mean north and south sections of what was then known as Llwellyn Rd.?  In any event the 1913 Llwellyn Rd. that became Golf House Rd is a more accentuated "S" than was approximately drawn in 1910.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Thanks...a coupla points in response.

The map is dated by the civil engineers 11/15/1910.   On what basis would you infer that it was created prior?

As far as width, I keep coming up with a bit less than 100 yard...let's split the difference and call it 95.    In any case, we would agree that  it's probably 25% or more off from what exists today, and the lower quadrant around the 14th tee is off by even more.  

My term "hypothetical" should have been "Approximate".   I was typing a response to you early this morning without it in front of me.  

The thing is, these were very precise measurements, even if the road was not build yet, for the simple reason that it was the proposed property line and division between housing development and golf course.  

For some reason, it appears that the HDC wanted to create the symmetrical, curvilinear line around both sides of their proposed development, almost in sort of a woman's torso shape, and that's what eventually got build very precisely on the western side of the land.  

On the eastern, however, it's obvious that changes in the golf course "plan" created a need to really alter it, with a bite taken out of top, filled in on the lower side.

Do you see anything inherently wrong about that logic?

[Mike_Cirba]

The other question I have for those who suggest that this was simply a "hypothethical" road on the November 15, 1910 map is;

Who are these people who suggest that the road was "hypothetical"?  Your the only person who has called it hypothetical (unless I missed another reference in the myriad posts).  The precise engineers called it precisely "approximate", meaning it'll be around here somewhere.

Why were the smooth curvilenear lines of the westward portion of that road eventually built accurately to scale and the east side (the golf course side) obviously distorted and reconfigured? 

I don't understand your point of east vs west portions of the road.  Do you mean north and south sections of what was then known as Llwellyn Rd.?  In any event the 1913 Llwellyn Rd. that became Golf House Rd is a more accentuated "S" than was approximately drawn in 1910.

Andy,

Perhaps I should ask it another way.

It appears that whoever drew these boundaries wanted to have a symmetrical, cuvilinear road on both sides of the proposed real-estate development as seen here.



When the "approximate" road was eventually built, and if the only reason that the triangle measure say 100 yards was because it was only "approximate", don't you think the ENTIRE road would have been shifted to the left 30 yards, and not just that portion? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other question I have for those who suggest that this was simply a "hypothethical" road on the November 15, 1910 map is;

Why were the smooth curvilenear lines of the westward portion of that road eventually built accurately to scale and the east side (the golf course side) obviously distorted and reconfigured? 

Mike,

Way back on page 1 or 2 of this thread, Dave M posted an overlay of how the roads were actually built in the subdivision and the west road was changed from the Pughs plan of 11.15.1910.  

I don't think that affects the issue, and seems logical that they "rushed" a plan out so MCC could make the transaction, with (as TePaul notes) the ability to change the boundaries later via Mr. Lloyd.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I understand what you're saying and I think this shows it pretty well.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/Ardmore+PA/#a/maps/l:::Ardmore:PA::US:40.006699:-75.285797:city:Montgomery+County/m:hyb:12:40.002334:-75.317827:0::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e

[Jeff_Brauer]

"But that is not the point I was trying to make.  My issue is with your use of Merion documents to argue with DM, while not allowing him and others to see the same documents. I fully understand why Wayne has taken the position he has vis a vis the documentation and think it is the correct and proper course. But I do not believe it is according to Hoyle for you to then turn around and say the meeting minutes say this or that or prove this or that. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, maybe it's a mistaken reading on your part.

But that is a distinct issue from you posting your opinions or from your unique experience or knowledge."



Andy:

Again, if this website does not want me to offer my opinions on some things I'm aware of before first putting what I'm aware of physically on here that's fine. But if they do want my opinions on some things I'm aware of without putting proof of them on here first I'm willing to consider doing that. What I don't necessarily want is for David Moriarty to hold this website hostage from my opinions, or anyone else's, simply because he wants to see something himself first before someone offers their opinion on it. I hope that's clear enough.

TePaul,

Since I am now hooked on the creation of MCC like some get hooked on bad Soap Operas, I would naturally like you to post what you know.  You can even post your opinions as to what the signifigance of that document is, even if you can't post the document.

Given that you have added about ten paragraphs to each of your posts explaining why you feel DM is hysterical, difficult, and a 1000 other things, I have to say I think I have absorbed that point by now!

I am not sure why you can't post something like:

We found a deed/meeting minutes/letter etc.  dated XX-XX-XXXX. 
It says this - XXXXXX
IMHO, that means....XXXX

Since we know you feel all of DM's piece is basically discredited, there is no need to retell the tale of how this particular info further discredits it, at least IMHO.  It would shorten your posts, make them more readable, and allow you to spend more time researching the old files rather than typing more about DM and his IMO piece.  All of those are good things, I think.

I don't see how DM could hold you or this website hostage, especially if you provide info, rather than argue with him about his.  I agree with you that he has no right to see anything first above anyone else. Of course, I agree with you that if Merion wants none of it on this website, thats their right.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

As I said above, "My point was that they drew it sometime before that date and that someone retained them to measure the property and draw the plan before that.  I doubt they got the commission, went out and measured, and drew it all on November 15, 1910."  All I'm saying is that the creation process wasn't done in a day.  I presume that the date November 15, 1910 was the date that Pugh and Hubbard actually drew the version of the map that they gave to whoever in Merion or Haverford or whoever contracted them.  The actual measuring must have happened before that.  And, they must have been contracted before they measured.  No?!?

Sure, 95 yards would be fine unless you have a much higher resolution version of the map than is on the IMO piece.

"very precise" is redundant.  They were either precise or they weren't.    In any event, property line or not, it was labeled as "approximate".  I take that as it's stated.  This apparently was not a surveyors map suitable for land transfer and deed purposes.

I can't infer anything from the change in the approximate road in 1910 vs the as-built road in 1913.  You can.  Peace.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

I am not sure precision was involved. Its just a conceptual or illustrative plan of the proposed land division between golf and housing.  If they had the original boundary maps from the earlier land transactions, I don't think any measuring was required to draw it. I get the impression it is just an exhibit to give Merion members a general idea of what they were buying.

Thats all pretty common.

I have no problem surmising that the road was built after the golf course, and was delayed entirely to make sure the golf course got built the way they wanted.  While we are focusing on the 15th/16th as part of the land swap, look how closely it follows 14 green and 15 tee, including a pretty sharp bend, whereas the other roads have gentle curves!  No doubt in my mind that the golf was built and subdivision planned afterwards, since the road layout is not the smooth curves shown in concept.  (and likely, given the influence of Ohmstead and other LA's in that era influenced by their style)

Unrelated thought - If MCC had thought to keep a little more land by 14 tee, we wouldn't have the scariest opening tee shot in golf with the patio lurking right off the tee!

[Bryan Izatt]

When the "approximate" road was eventually built, and if the only reason that the triangle measure say 100 yards was because it was only "approximate", don't you think the ENTIRE road would have been shifted to the left 30 yards, and not just that portion? 

I assume you meant this for me and not Andy. 

It doesn't matter what I think.   What matters is why Pugh drew it this way and it was built a different way.  None of the documentation answers that question.

If you want a hypothetical, how about, the land to the west of the course that Francis said wasn't suitable for golf and was swapped is actually the area in the "hips" of the curvilinear figure near the clubhouse that was on the course property in 1910 map but not in the 1913 map.  All complete unsubstantiated speculation that I will deny if pressed.   

Brauer is right, we're addicts.  I gotta go play golf.  Don't you guys have anything else to do with your lives.

[Andy Hughes]

Again, if this website does not want me to offer my opinions on some things I'm aware of before first putting what I'm aware of physically on here that's fine. But if they do want my opinions on some things I'm aware of without putting proof of them on here first I'm willing to consider doing that. What I don't necessarily want is for David Moriarty to hold this website hostage from my opinions, or anyone else's, simply because he wants to see something himself first before someone offers their opinion on it. I hope that's clear enough.

Tom, yes it's quite clear but I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
This is the type of thing I am referring to:
Again, thankfully they [the meeting minutes, AH] do exist and they completely disprove a number of your premises certainly including your outrageous manipulations of the truth and the facts of this Francis land swap resolution for the course and when it happened.
This would appear to go far beyond just an opinion and venture into stating as fact what is actually your own reading of the minutes.  Might it be possible for you to at least post that portion of the minutes that 'completely disproves' things so everyone can judge for themselves?


EDIT: Just saw Jeff's post. He said it better and with more depth.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Sure, I agree it was more likely an illustrative plan.  I was only responding to Mike's view that it was a very precise engineering drawing.

I haven't had the stress of teeing off on the 1st at Merion, but I have at the fist at the Old Course, and arguably that's a more stressful experience. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()