[TEPaul]

"And why do you suppose they kept them not just from us, but from you too?"


David Moriarty:

That's funny; over a year ago I recall driving from Philadelphia to Far Hills, NJ, not a totally insignificant distance, and spending the day in the USGA Green Section reading through ever letter from those agronomy files we did not already have from Wilson from Feb. 1, 1911 (his first) to his trip abroad in 1912 trying to determine if he even had enough time to go abroad in 1911 or before his March/April 1912 trip abroad. He definitely didn't and I reported that on here and of course you read that and used that information which is just fine. But that you continue to totally overlook, dismiss and ignore something like that is just another example of how the way you try to cast us on here backfires on you just about every time with FACTS!!  


For once it would be beneficial to see you actually acknowledge a post like this one AND the TRUTH of IT rather than ignoring every one like it as you always have done on here just to try to continue to cast us in some bad light which it is perfectly obvious has always been your primary intention with this subject of Merion.

[JESII]

Sully,

Does the initial selection of the 117 original acres as I identified it above make sense to you?

Compare the Johnson Farm property south of Ardmore Ave as well as the adjoning Dallas estate and now look at the land south of Ardmore Ave that is designated as part of the golf course on the 1910 plan.

Really looks like the "bought the land for the holes they designed", doesn't it?  Sure.

Now look north of Ardmore Ave and see how that section of Johnson Farm was merely divided by a hypothetical boundary defined by an "approximate" road that purported to mark the divide between golf course and real estate land.

Do you see how simply and semi-arbitrarily they selected the land for the course?

Does it now make sense why that triangle of land appears on the approx. 1910 Land Plan, albeit running way too far north to College Ave.? 

Mike,

I am not sure exactly what you are saying or asking here?

It seems you're asking if I can see that the road you drew on the RR map is arbitrary and if so, I shouldn't pay too much attention to it...please tell me that is not what you are asking...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Its easier to discuss than type it all again. 

My point is simply that the supposed boundary lines that Merion selected because that's where the holes best fit are really only the property lines that existed previously on the aquired properties.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Mike's theory is nonsense, as I explained to him in the NGLA thread.   the boundaries were set according to the needs of the golf course. 

1.  Part of the Johnson property west of the course wasn't needed, and the boundary was change accordingly.   
2.  The Francis land swap area was not originally offered, but it was added.
3.  The entire Dallas estate was added AFTER the offer for land was initially made, strongly suggesting that the reason that this land was purchased was that it was required for the course.   
4.  The RR property land behind the clubhouse was not offered either, but was added to the golf course at M&W's insistence.
5.  Even the shape of the former Dallas Estate was altered to best suit the golf course.

So Mike, you can see that the borders of the course were not predetermined at all, but were determined according to the needs of the golf course.   

The only boundary that remained for sure was  PART of the eastern boundary, except for the RR property, and perhaps the southern boundary, but this is far from certain.

[TEPaul]

"5.  Even the shape of the former Dallas Estate was altered to best suit the golf course."


David Moriarty:

No it wasn't between the all important two deeds of Dec, 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911 when Lloyd held the land for MCC when, in the winter and early spriing of 1911 the Wilson Committee was laying out numerous different courses and five final plans just before the course approval.

[TEPaul]

"2.  The Francis land swap area was not originally offered, but it was added."


David Moriarty:


Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing where-all the Francis land swap (exhange for land already purchased for land adjoining AND the purchase of an additional 3 acres) was other than YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you think Francis meant. You think the Francis land swap created that whole triangle above the straight extension west of the southern boundary of the Haverford College to the proposed road but you have no way of actually knowing that because you do not know what the topo survery maps the Wilson Committee were working with showed regarding that part of the delineation of the proposed Golf House Road.

[DMoriarty]

To all,

We've been asked to believe that there is something magical or "all important" about the Dec. 19, 1910 and July 21, 1911 deeds.   While I am very interested in what these deeds have to say, and think it is despicable that they are being hidden from us,  I am not expecting the holy grail, and think we should be careful not to lose site of a few things that we know with or without these documents. 

1.  As I have been saying for close to a year now, Lloyd may have technically taken title, but he was not in control of the Johnson Farm property.  He was holding title for HDC.  In essence he was acting as a bridge or facilitator while both sides got their ducks in a row and complete the transaction.   Cuyler's letter confirms this.

2. The swap mentioned in the April Board Minutes could not possibly refer to the Francis land swap unless the metes provided thus far are substantially off. 

3.  Whatever swap was contemplated in the April minutes may not have been completed until AFTER July 19, 1911. 

4.  Same goes for whatever purchase was contemplated in the same minutes.

5..Francis tells us exactly what land Merion gained in the Francis land SWAP.   And he sure as heck didn't mention that Merion gained any land south of the 15th tee!  The land described measures just short of 5 acres, which is about 66% more than 3 acres.   And Francis described a land SWAP not a land purchase.   

[JESII]

2. The swap mentioned in the April Board Minutes could not possibly refer to the Francis land swap unless the metes provided thus far are substantially off. 

Why not?

[TEPaul]

"Mike Cirba and Andy,

TEPaul has vaguely alluded to this CBM letter a few times, although he did not mention the companion letter from Wilson to Oakley or grasp the significance of the letter as it's companion letter indicating that CBM and Wilson were communicating much more than he was letting on. "



This looks like another deflection on Moriarty's part unless something other than communications on architecture between Macdonald and Wilson is something you're interested in hearing about.

Are you?

If so I'd be glad to make those letters available to you or tell you where you might find them but I warn you they are not communications between Wilson and Macdonald on golf course architecture at all; they are only about agronomy. Unless you are interested in how much Oakley (and apparently Wilson too) disagreed with Macdonald (and Beale)  about the quantities of tons per acre of fertilizer (manure) to put on greens or turf, you may not be that interested in this single letter from Macdonald to Wilson.

In that single June 13, 1911 letter we have from Macdonald to Wilson, Charlie addresses him as "Mr. Wilson." Sounds like a whole lot of familiarity there, don't you think; like they'd been working closely together on a routing and design plan for Merion East for about a year? 

But who really knows; anything is possible and maybe Charlie and Mr. Wilson communicated with each other all the time. Maybe they spent hours talking about some real hot show girls or what the best liquor was in New York or Philadelphia. That could have been but it's relevence to how and when the Francis land swap occured may be a bit "iffy" or thin.

March, 22, 1911 letter from Wilson to Macdonald:
"Mr. Macdonald,
            Our in-house surveyor/engineer, Richard Francis, had this bright idea in the middle of the night of how to fit the last five holes into our routing (sorry, Mr. Macdonald---YOUR routing) and he went to Mr. Lloyd with it for permission about how to exchange some land we already purchased for land adjoining AND to purchase an additional three acres to increase our property from 117 acres to 120."


March 26, 1911 response letter from Macdonald to Wilson:
"Mr. Wilson,
             That's a jake idea! I whole-heartedly approve. It reminds me of the other night in one of those high-class cat houses in New York I was telling you about where I exchanged three moonlighting showgirls for three I had already puchased and then I decided to purchase three additional moonlighting show girls too. Mr. Wilson, I can only inform and advise you that to have six beautiful moonlighting New York showgirls all over you for five or six hours is something any first rate amateur/sportsman golf architect must experience if he ever wants to be worth his salt!"

[TEPaul]

"2. The swap mentioned in the April Board Minutes could not possibly refer to the Francis land swap unless the metes provided thus far are substantially off."


David Moriarty:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Does anyone? What metes provided thus far are you referring to? 

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul is apparently hitting the bottle a little early today, as he has lost track of what thread he is on.

In response to his post above to Mike Cirba and Andy, which belongs on another thread:



Mike Cirba and Andy,

I am sure you realize that

1.  I described the letter because you asked me about it.

2.  I indicated that the letter was about Agronomy.

3.  I explained why I think the letter(s) were nonetheless significant to our discussion.

_________________


In the Ag Letters, Hugh Wilson used the formal prefix "Mr. ____________" when addressing Piper or Oakley.  This was true even after he had met with Oakley twice, communicated with him dozens of times, and even invited him to come stay at the club and even his home.  Obviously it would be a error to suggest that the inclusion of "Mr. _______" at address should be taken as a sign of formality or a lack of prior communications.   

Don't you think it would be disingenuous or perhaps dishonest for one who had seen hundred or thousands of such letters, all similarly addressed, to suggest that the use of "Mr. ___________" indicated unfamiliarity or lack of previous  communication?    Or would you think that such a person must just be very dense when interpreting this stuff?  It has to be one or the other.

[JESII]

Tom,

If the December 19, 1910 deed which trasferred ownership of 161 acres from HDC to Lloyd does not reflect any consideration for Golf House Road, and the July 1911 does not breach the western boundary of the former Johnson Farm for three acres, what would be learned from this exercise with the metes and bounds that you are insisting Bryan and everyone else sits through?

[TEPaul]

Mr. Moriarty:

Please answer my question in post #1240 unless you think that question should be ignored, dismissed or rationalized away too because it might reveal something about your understanding of all this you would prefer not to have revealed! 

[TEPaul]

"In the Ag Letters, Hugh Wilson used the formal prefix "Mr. ____________" when addressing Piper or Oakley.  This was true even after he had met with Oakley twice, communicated with him dozens of times, and even invited him to come stay at the club and even his home.  Obviously it would be a error to suggest that the inclusion of "Mr. _______" at address should be taken as a sign of formality or a lack of prior communications.   

Don't you think it would be disingenuous or perhaps dishonest for one who had seen hundred or thousands of such letters, all similarly addressed, to suggest that the use of "Mr. ___________" indicated unfamiliarity or lack of previous  communication?    Or would you think that such a person must just be very dense when interpreting this stuff?  It has to be one or the other."



To All:


That type of assumption expressed in that remark above is so typical of David Moriarty and it also completely reflects the lack of depth he researchs something before forming a totally locked-in opinion, assumption, premise or conclusion about it.  Apparently his research on those so-called "agronomy letters" between Piper and Oakley that lasted for the remainder of Wilson's short life (about 14 more years) is no more comprehensive or complete than the research he did or the material he used when he wrote the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" about a year ago. There was all kinds of research material he should've had on that and didn't.

David Moriarty, perhaps you should read the REST of the approximately 1000 letters between Wilson and Piper and Oakley if you really want to know how long the formality in the way they addressed each other lasted. The fact is you don't know because you've never read all those letters as I have and some time ago.

Do you know what the term "to hoist one's self on one's on petard" means, David Moriarty? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Mike's theory is nonsense, as I explained to him in the NGLA thread.   the boundaries were set according to the needs of the golf course. 

1.  Part of the Johnson property west of the course wasn't needed, and the boundary was change accordingly.   
2.  The Francis land swap area was not originally offered, but it was added.
3.  The entire Dallas estate was added AFTER the offer for land was initially made, strongly suggesting that the reason that this land was purchased was that it was required for the course.   
4.  The RR property land behind the clubhouse was not offered either, but was added to the golf course at M&W's insistence.
5.  Even the shape of the former Dallas Estate was altered to best suit the golf course.

So Mike, you can see that the borders of the course were not predetermined at all, but were determined according to the needs of the golf course.   

The only boundary that remained for sure was  PART of the eastern boundary, except for the RR property, and perhaps the southern boundary, but this is far from certain.

Sully,

Let me try this again.

Please look at the plots of land on the following map from 1908, pre-Merion, pre-HDC.

In it, please look at the land south of Ardmore Avenue.   It contains the southern portion of the Johnson Farm, and just adjacent to the southwest is the Dallas Estate.



WIth me so far?

Ok, now here's the Merion Land Plan from 1910.   Please again see the land selected for the course south of Ardmore Avenue.



The land selected for holes 2 through the first half of the original #12 is all in the same dimensions as the original estates that they purchased.

They didn't buy some special areas of land for the already routed golf course.   They bought land, and then routed the golf course.

Now, look again at the first map north of Ardmore Avenue.

Keep in mind that Merion wanted 1) To have the golf course adjacent to the railroad, and 2) to use the existing farmhouse as a clubhouse, and 3) use the quarry and creek.

So, what did they do?

They took the divided up the northern part of the Johnson Farm that ran from Ardmore to College Ave, creating an "approximate" boundary that they'd figure out later, but which was intended to divide the HDC land (which included the Johnson Farm and a few other plots) into 117 acres for golf and 221 for real estate.

So, once again, the lines are just drawn approximate and arbitrary, but the locating of those parcels had NOTHING to do with a routing existing.   They simply had to do with drawing out a section of HDC's holdings (the southern and eastern-most parts) for golf, and the rest (all that west and north) for real estate.

They land they selected and purchased was not based on some existing routing that was somehow meant to maximize the best golf ground out of HDC's holdings.

If that were the case, don't you think they would have used some areas in the middle, perhaps, and that the course would be much more randomly placed than in the neat existing boundaries of land plots owned by HDC?

To David's response, 1) conceded...so what...the northern part of the Johnson property was split into eastern and western sections as I described above.

2) Conceded, but it wasn't the "triangle land" as David contends. 

3) The Dallas Estate was added because what they were originally offered wasn't enough land for a golf course and M&W strongly suggested that.   Barker was the only one who routed a golf course without that land and it had to be a futile, asinine, one-day effort on his part.

4) Conceded, but adding that land by the clubhouse would make sense and be obvious to anyone...after all, it gives you more width to work with where the L intersects, and it does have that lovely creek to work with.

5) Untrue.   Any adjustment to that boundary happened well after the land was purchased.

David's 5 points are a smokescreen designed to hide the FACT that Merion simply bought ALL of the southern part of the Johnson Farm, the eastern Half (roughly) of the northern part of the Johnson Farm, ALL of the Dallas Estate, and those were the basic boundaries of the original course, and mostly still are today.   They most assuredly did not buy some land neatly configured to a routing...they routed the course within those predetermined boundaries, with the exception of the additional land they had to get in the Francis Swap.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Moriarty:

Please answer my question in post #1240 unless you think that question should be ignored, dismissed or rationalized away too because it might reveal something about your understanding of all this you would prefer not to have revealed! 

Tom, you have apparently already forgotten that I am not hear to answer your inquiries.  You have no role to play in a serious conversation because you are 1) extraordinarily rude and incapable of civil discussion, and 2) you refuse to back up your claims with verifiable facts.

So figure it out yourself.  After all you are the one hoarding all the source material.    Pretty sad, though, that you have to come to me to explain your errors to you, given that you have all the material and I don't.

______________________________________________

Jim,  Mike's  theory has so many holes and exceptions it disproves itself.   He has to add in the Dallas estate, change the border of the western side of the Johnson farm, add the RR property, change the border of the Dallas estate, and he has to ignore the apparent change to the southern border which I did not mention above.    If you figure out what he thinks he has proven, could you let me know? 

The five examples I provide above demonstrate that the course took priority and the land was purchased around the course they wanted. 

_________________________

Mike,

- Mike, had they needed to add more land, they surely did not have to buy the Dallas Estate.  They could have exercised their option on some of the other 170+ acres they owned.    They added the Dallas Estate because that land worked for their golf course. 

- The change to the Dallas estate border was formalized in the fall of 1912, but as I explained above there is more to this story, and the transaction likely traces back to April 1911 for reasons already described.     

- Plus Mike, I give no significance whatsoever to these dates of deeds that you and TEPaul think are so important.    Because I know there was much more to all this than the deeds. 

[JESII]

Mike,

HDC owned 320 or so acres prior to buying the Dallas estate, why did they "need" to buy the 20 acre Dallas estate if they didn't know they could immediately sell it to Merion for the golf course?

[TEPaul]

"So figure it out yourself.  After all you are the one hoarding all the source material.    Pretty sad, though, that you have to come to me to explain your errors, given that you have all the material and I don't."

David Moriarty:

Believe me, I'm not asking you to explain to me any errors I've made; I'm only asking you to explain some of the preposterous things YOU say on here that have zero basis in fact.

But I can't say your refusal to answer any of my questions by using that same stupid excuse surprises me at all. Believe me, there is no one on this DG who has the understanding of all these details that I do and it's pretty clear that you now know if you even attempt to answer any of my questions cogently rather than deceptively or just flat ignore them you understand it will expose your years long fallacious contentions on Merion. 

You're like the cowardly kid who decides to take his ball and go home because things aren't going his way.

In any case, it doesn't matter to me if you communicate with me or not. I can and will destroy that essay of yours and your continued contentions about it and support of it without you. I sure don't need you for that. If you think your credibility or your reputation suffers as a result of it, Oh Well, Boo-hoo, so what?! I'm not the one who put that preposterous essay out there with far less than the required research---You are!

[DMoriarty]

You've got the ball Tom.   Bring it out and we will see how much you know.   

What an asinine position.   You scold me because I will not explain to you what is wrong with your understanding of documents you refuse to let me see.  Foolish and pathetic. 

Produce your support and I will tell you where you have gone wrong.  Again.

[TEPaul]

"You've got the ball Tom.

Bring it out and we will see how much you know."



You're right I probably do. When I played pick up ball in the old days we generally didn't ask pipsqueaks into the game? Why? Because we knew they would inevitably get hurt. So now you're hurt like one of those pipsqueaks who never should've been in the game. If you want to learn something that you don't know it's better to just watch for a while and learn or maybe ask too. When you took on this preposterous Merion charade campaign of yours (with MacWood) years ago you actually admitted you didn't know much about it and you wanted to learn (so did he). You still don't know much about it and either does he. So what you two did is throw some revisionist shit on the wall and when you got challenged you demanded access to everything you should've had before you two began to say what you did about Merion and Macdonald. And what are you both doing now? You're both trying to get access to material you should've gotten before you even began to form your opinions, assumptions, premises and conclusions. Maybe next time you'll understand if you want to learn something come to the people first that know a lot more than you do. But that's not what you did is it or even wanted to do? Of course not because learning the truth about the architectural history of Merion was never your real interest. The only thing you (and MacWood) cared about is trying to embarrass the people who do know Merion. Apparently you must have thought that might give you two some credibility on here or whatever. It didn't and it never will.   

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,

Can I ask a simple question? Is it easier to type out the posts such as your last one rather than to type a post that would provide requested info(metes and bounds)?

I'm wondering, as you're typing skills seem adequate.

Joe

[DMoriarty]

"You've got the ball Tom.

Bring it out and we will see how much you know."



You're right I probably do. When I played pick up ball in the old days we generally didn't ask pipsqueaks into the game? Why? Because we knew they would inevitably get hurt. So now you're hurt like one of those pipsqueaks who never should've been in the game. If you want to learn something that you don't know it's better to just watch for a while and learn or maybe ask too. When you took on this preposterous Merion charade campaign of yours (with MacWood) years ago you actually admitted you didn't know much about it and you wanted to learn (so did he). Maybe next time you'll understand if you want to learn something come to the people first that know a lot more than you do. But that's not what you did is it or even wanted to do? Of course not because learning the truth about the architectural history of Merion was never your real interest. The only thing you (and MacWood) cared about is trying to embarrass the people who do know Merion. Apparently you must have thought that might give you two some credibility on here or whatever. It didn't and it never will.   

Perhaps I should start a new thread? 

Shell's Wonderful World of Golf:   T E Paul v. Kim Jong-il, battle at Delusional Dunes.

[TEPaul]

If Bryan Izatt wants to work with me on another thread to try to resolve this Francis issue via an excercise I propose to its conclusion I will be more than happy to then give him any metes and bounds he wants.

But if you come on that thread David Moriarty, it will be over just like that. If I can't have a conversation on this with Bryan Izatt on here without your constant sidetracking interference I will take it private with him if he will go through this excercise with me to its conclusion, then----once again----he can have all the metes and bounds he wants to measure whatever he wants to measure. I hope he can then figure out what it really means in relation to this Francis land swap, how it happened and when (within a timeframe).

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

HDC owned 320 or so acres prior to buying the Dallas estate, why did they "need" to buy the 20 acre Dallas estate if they didn't know they could immediately sell it to Merion for the golf course?

Jim,

Look at the land configuration.

They clearly wanted to maximize the real estate portion and the 220+ acres of homesites of rapidly increasing value as they built the golf course.

Bad News Barker told them in his one day of wonder that they could have an awesome course on 100 acres like the PT Barnum he was, but thankfully Macdonald and Whigham came on and said...uh...you better think about this guys.

Their prior course in Haverford was 102 acres (yes David, the original info I had was incorrect) and they clearly felt that course was constrained and outmoded by the new golf ball (Richard Francis tells us).   So, any common sense would tell them they needed at least 20% more or so, and I'm sure M&W did, as well.   

The Dallas Estate was a nice 17 acre pickup, and with the 3 Railroad acres recommended by M&W that brought them out to 120.

M&W would have known from their own experience at NGLA at this point, as well.   They first thought they'd need about 110 acres for their 6000 yard course, but eventually used over 150.

Besides, the Dallas Property was CONTIGUOUS to expanding the golf course along the exact same boundary lines.   It allowed them to lengthen and expand holes along the same playing corridors.   Buying that land up for golf also took the golf course out to another major existing road boundary.   

The entire scheme fit together like one "L" atop another "L"

The real estate component was to the west and north, the golf course to the east and south.   

Why would they strip out a piece of the middle when the whole thing fit together like conjoined twins?

Look again at that map.   

[DMoriarty]

Mike that is silly.  If they expanded the course north of the road, they could have done so in a manner by which the the number of properties bordering the course would increase.  Plus they still could have bought the Dallas estate for housing, and it would have given then even more lots directly bordering the course.   Plus they could have started earlier, as opposed to waiting to clandestinely obtain the Dallas Estate.

____________________

TEPaul. 

Bryan can do what he wants.  Whatever he does, I am sure he will agree that your demands and conditions are childish.   Back to your ball analogy, why are you afraid to let all the players into the game?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()