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
)