Merion's Early Timeline

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

There are a number of things wrong with your 13 acre theory.

First, there is no record of Merion ever securing 130 acres in principle in any of the club documents.   117 acres is specifically mentioned.

Second, there would have been no need for Merion to approve purchase of 3 extra acres in April 1911 from the original agreement in principle to purchase 117 acres if they already had secured the land to the Johnson Farm boundary.

Third, this ignores the fact there is absolutely no record or other evidence that the Johnson Farm was ever sub-divided at the arbitrary Haverford College boundary and in my unanswered list of issues above I cite why that would have been absolutely ludicrous, incredibly short-sighted, and directly against Macdonald & Whigham's advice for them to have done so.

Fourth, if the Johnson Farm had been previously subdivided as such, which it wasn't, then what "almost 120 acres" would Merion have been thinking they needed for golf in July 1910, when all that HDC actually owned at that time was the 140 acre Johnson Farm and the northeastern and southern quadrant of that farm added up to 119 acres?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Time to put down the pipe Mike...

Jim,

I'd prefer you show us which number(s) is wrong.

Even if I reduce the total number of swappable acres on each side of the transaction down to 5 (Bryan argued the other day for a swap of 4.8 for 14 acres) so this is absurdly low, the odds of Jeff's theory being wrong is 1 out of 45.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yeah, I think we should really have Ran or Ben just lock this thread.  And, you are defending me!

I spoke with TePaul this morning. He is, on his own account, searching MCC, deeds, and even in Washington DC for evidence or copies of Wilson's working topos.  Now, it may take months, but when and if he finds them, we might have something more to discuss regarding any interim boundary.  For the record, he is in the "there must have been another boundary" camp. You know, there could have been but it was certainly just another line on a paper, since there is no deed or record of such a line delineating a specific 117 acres.

So, once again, let's give it a rest and start a new thread when new evidence comes out.  Endlessly debating this is not productive and its perhaps costing some friendships, or as Lincoln would put it, "breaking the bonds of our affection."

And, there is some possible danger in turning internet speculation into fact that isn't.  Here's a new one - the MJ autopsy shows he had a crumpled copy of Merion threads in his hands when he died, and he was so angry it caused cardiac arrest.  Hey, just because there is no evidence that MJ was reading Merion threads the day he died, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, right? Isn't that about the level we have stooped to here?

As to the 13 acres, I think that MCC decided it was an unlucky number and backed out of the option......no seriously, I think its just another one of those newspaper mistakes that seem to happen with regularity.  

In sort of a related subject, we know gca hadn't really developed the professional standards of today.  Does anyone with a journalism background know if rigid journalistic fact checking had developed by that point for local papers?

Actually, don't answer that!

Ran and Ben, Take Down This Thread!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Agreed.

I've asked about 50 common sense, factual, evidence-based, obvious questions that those who are unable or unwilling to see what Francis actually meant just continue to ignore, so we're way past the point of productive discussion.

Unless someone actually has new evidence, or a new theory actually based on facts we know, it's time to say, nice job and catch you on another thread! 

[JESII]

Jeff,

What I have said all along is that I think the most likely original boundary up in that neighborhood was a stright shot across from the southern border of the Haverford College land...Mike made it clear that that was unlikely because the acreage was something like 130 which was never used...now it turns out Lloyd had an option (may have had an option, it seems the newspapers aren't always dead on) that brings the total land to 130 acres and the only place that makes sense is the area west of GHR's current placement.

Now we can accept the 130 optioned acres as a preliminary step before a final routing and exact need was established...I think.

[JESII]

One other item of interest is that it states that CBM, Whigham, and Barker all inspected the property prior to purchase.   You'd think it would say that either or all of them designed the course by this stage, wouldn't you?  Or at least just call it a Lloyd/Francis design.  

Boy...for someone you say is trying to stifle debate I'm sure spending a lot of time putting source material out here.    

So Mike, this "source material" you were so happy to use when it supported your cause re: CBM and Barker not waranting any design credit from this writer is now a worthless piece of newspaper speculation?



As to which number is wrong...I think it's poor logic to use an "approximate" border as an exact one...everything you and Jeff have built in the last few pages is based on the "approximate" GHR being the exact property boundary they were using and that it enclosed 122 acres at the same time they were advertising 117 acres...how do you think the profit seeking HDC would feel about losing 5 acres on a whim by the engineer?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

What I have said all along is that I think the most likely original boundary up in that neighborhood was a stright shot across from the southern border of the Haverford College land...Mike made it clear that that was unlikely because the acreage was something like 130 which was never used...now it turns out Lloyd had an option (may have had an option, it seems the newspapers aren't always dead on) that brings the total land to 130 acres and the only place that makes sense is the area west of GHR's current placement.

Now we can accept the 130 optioned acres as a preliminary step before a final routing and exact need was established...I think.

Well, thanks for a straight answer!  That is a first on this thread, at least lately.....

The straight across theory does make some sense to me.  It's the second most logiical theory, IMHO.

In any case, I think they all knew that the line on the map was 122, but never formalized any different border until done with routing, by deeds.  They had to have debated "How do we get this down to 117 acres" whether a new formal line was drawn or not.  Its not really that big a point of contention.  Maybe Wilson's topo maps will show exactly what they considered as an interim boundary, if any.

Not sure about the 130 acres as being any kind of boundary unless those Wilson maps show it to be considered, and then discarded.  Those newspaper articles do have some wrong facts.  I don't think there is any record of any 13 acres taken.  And given that Lloyd was also trying to help members and HDC by getting them to buy houses out there, perhaps he was just trying to secure some land for prime houses by members, or just consider it.  But, there I go again, just opening up with more speculation.....sometimes, I just can't help myself, but must, must, must start to do so.

[Joe Bausch]

In sort of a related subject, we know gca hadn't really developed the professional standards of today.  Does anyone with a journalism background know if rigid journalistic fact checking had developed by that point for local papers?

Jeff, tell me the name of a newspaper that does this NOW!

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe, Joe, Joe,

By the logic demonstrated on this thread, just because newspapers get their facts wrong on a semi-regular basis is no proof that they get their facts wrong on a semi-regular basis, is it?

Oh yeah,

Ran, Take Down This Thread!

You know, seriously, I think Ran should put a cap on the number of posts on any thread, like a salary cap in sports is supposed to save the Owners from themselves. We need to be saved from own selves.  If we can't solve this in over 2000 posts, its time to stop.

[JESII]

Well, thanks for a straight answer!  That is a first on this thread, at least lately.....

The straight across theory does make some sense to me.  It's the second most logiical theory, IMHO.

Jeff,

Why can't they both be correct?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oy Vey!

Well, in schools today, it appears 2 + 2 can be either 4 or 5, so why not.

Ran, Take Down This Thread!

[Mike_Cirba]

Under either Jeff's theory, or this new "130 acres" theory, am I correct in assuming that EVERYONE here is in agreement that either scenario had to happen after November 15, 1910??  

In other words, it's impossible to argue that the "triangle" existed on the November 15, 1910 Land Plan, yet argue they still didn't have it, YET HAD 130 ACRES in January 1911, correct?!?!   

[JESII]

Mike,

That would presume that the article was writen exactly when Lloyd took the option, I do not agree with that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

That would presume that the article was writen exactly when Lloyd took the option, I do not agree with that.

Jim,

But there is no record that anyone ever "took" the option, at any time. Certainly there is nothing in the Merion records mentioning securing 130 acres.

The article appeared AFTER Lloyd took title to 161 acres in December 1911, over a month after that Land Plan was drawn and sent to membership.

In other words, we KNOW that it was written after the Land Plan was drawn because it talks about events that happened AFTER November.

One cannot argue the November Land Plan shows proof of the Francis Swap happening before then because of the existence of the "triangle", while also arguing that as of December when Lloyd took title that area was not already part of the purchase.

The two ideas are factually incongruous.

[JESII]

Jeff,

You have hung your hat on the 122 acres for a logical reason...but not necessarily an accurate one...

The November letter from Lesley (or maybe Evans) said the committee had secured 117 acres, wouldn't Lloyd have logically optioned his 13 as well prior to that date? If so, Bryan's math adds up and the fact that the triangle is at all present on the 11/15 Map proves to me that his idea occurred prior to the drawing of the map. Lloyd would have been the "Go To Guy" at that point and it enables us to accept rather than dismiss Richard Francis' words.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

"There is no evidence that there wasn't"

Am I the only one troubled by having my logic questioned by a bunch of folks who use double negatives like that?  With all due respect, like Patrick, that sentence also means that there was no evidence that there was an interim boundary, just as easily.  It means nothing. It means there is no evidence, period.  And yet, you continue to argue that despite no evidence, you believe it to be true and then go into attack mode on my parsing of the evidence that IS out there!

Remain unconvinced if you will.  But maintaining that just because there is no evidence, we can't exclude something, means this argument will go on forever, as if it hasn't already.  There was a time on this thread when everyone demanded some kind of factual proof for some new theory.  Now we are down to "Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean I am convinced that it didn't happen" whether referring to Barker, the committee, or little green men from Mars building MCC.

BTW, I have gone over my correspondances with TePaul and he doesn't say that there was a deed for 117 acres as far as I know. IF there is one, then my theory is wrong (see, I won't argue that just because the evidence proves otherwise, that my theory must be true!)  TePaul wants us to keep looking for that mythical boundary of 117, just llike you. He says that they say they were working up against a boundary that doesn't work. 

Well, I think the boundary as constituted by the road doesn't work, at least without realigning the road, as shown by a few quick routings that place those 5 holes in awkward places around the Quarry.

I asked Jim Sullivan, but if you think the boundary was somewhere else from the Nov 15 plan, please tell me where you think it is. I offered two scenarios. Mike C deflates one, although you might remain unconvinced.  My third was that they could have put it anywhere, as many have suggested.

My point is, if they put it anywhere, its just as logical that they left it where it was on the Nov 15 plan.  Why would they pay a surveyor and title company a dime to move a boundary that was going to move again as soon as they could possibly move it with a final routing?  Remember, part of the agreement was to move right away and Culyer says to let them know when the boundary is finalized.

Don't tell me I am wrong again,  but please answer the question as directly as you can.  Thanks in advance.

Jeff,

I really am sorry that the debate frustrates and angers you so much.  But, rather than pleading with Ran to lock it down, why don't you just stop posting to it.  You have postulated a theory and defended it.  I don't agree with it for the reasons I've stated above.  I think it is flawed.  Don't take it so personally.  I have put out flawed logic at times too.  It happens.  So, as my daughter would say to me:  Chill.

Having said that, I'm disappointed that you focus on one point (that I apologized in advance for) in my critique and didn't deal with the other points, if you want to disagree.

I want to move forward on the discovery process rather than locking down on what I consider a flawed theory.  My reposting of Mike's newspaper article on the 13 acre option was an attempt to do that, but it seems to have been summarily dismissed. 

Re the boundaries of the 117 acres, Tom said he had metes for it, which implied a deed.  I reposted Tom's post a few pages back.  He did post it.  Just because it's not in your correspondence from Tom doesn't mean that he didn't post it.  Sorry for the double negative.     In any event, if he is retracting the post or the statement, that's fine.  I wasted a fair amount of time parsing deeds looking for the boundaries, based partly on Tom's post, so I'm a bit frustrated by it too.  For whatever it's worth, I don't believe there is a deed that details the boundary of the 117 acres.

As to where the working boundary was, I think for the moment that I'll go with it being along the Johnson Farm western boundary and across to Haverford College as implied by the newspaper article. 

As to your question that you want a direct answer to, I'm not sure I understand the question.  But, if it's this question: "Why would they pay a surveyor and title company a dime to move a boundary that was going to move again as soon as they could possibly move it with a final routing?", then my answer would be that the approximate road was placed for soliciting members to buy bonds and wasn't intended to be a working boundary or a real boundary and they really didn't know where they wanted it to be, so they put it on the map where it was.  There's no emoticon for a shrug,, but as you can see, I really don't understand your question.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd also ask those who are stating that the 130 acres included the Johnson Farm below Haverford College as well as the Dallas Estate to tell us where the "almost 120 acres" were that the Site Committee recommended they'd need in July.

[Mike_Cirba]

Re the boundaries of the 117 acres, Tom said he had metes for it, which implied a deed.  I reposted Tom's post a few pages back.  He did post it.  Just because it's not in your correspondence from Tom doesn't mean that he didn't post it.  Sorry for the double negative.    In any event, if he is retracting the post or the statement, that's fine.  I wasted a fair amount of time parsing deeds looking for the boundaries, based partly on Tom's post, so I'm a bit frustrated by it too.  For whatever it's worth, I don't believe there is a deed that details the boundary of the 117 acres.

Bryan,

I talked to Tom Paul on this and he thinks you have read much too much into what he wrote when he said that the 117 acres were encapsulated within the 161 acre purchase by Lloyd.

He did not mean to imply that the metes and bounds of the 117 acres were specifically incorporated in that deed...only that the entire 117 acres was included within the metes and bounds of the 161 acre purchase.

There is no record found to date outlining where those specific 117 acres were located within the larger property purchase by Lloyd.

[JESII]

Mike,

They had any portion of the whole thing that they wanted...to zero in on 120 acres implies that there was a financial consideration (we can spend X amount total and at Y per acre that will equal 120 acres) or more likely they had an idea where they wanted the course to go and could ballpark it at 120 and fine tune it later...just my guess.

[JESII]

Is an option documented in any formal way?

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm hardly a professional statistician, but I'm sure some of the numbers guys out there can tell us precisely what the odds are of Jeff's theory being incorrect.

First of all, Bryan is contending that since 117 acres was never a legal boundary that Jeff is just making stuff up.   That's not what I'm contending at all.  Do you just make this stuff up.  Please reread what I wrote.  (Good God, I'm starting to sound like Mucci.   )  

That's really misleading.   Of course there was no deed for the 117 acres, but there was an agreement in principle, in the form of a letter from HDC to Merion from November 1910, and a returned acceptance letter from President Evans of Merion to HDC for specifically 117 acres.  The 117 acres was simply an agreement between MCC and HDC to purchase a tract of land of 117 acres. An agreement is not a deed.  It was upped to 120 acres when the deed was transferred in July 1911. The "agreement" was not even a sales agreement as we use today---eg the agreement was simply contained in two letters between HDC (making an offer of a tract of land of 117 acres) and Evans (accepting the offer).  Today that would be considered "an agreement in principle" (the letters did not constitute a contract). That agreement was essentially contained within Lloyd's deed of 161 acres.

So, we know that in the original agreement in December 1910 Merion "secured" 117 acres.  That should be November, not December.  

We also know that as measured by Bryan and David Moriarty, the November 1910 Land Plan measures to 122 acres.

We also know that in July 1911, Merion purchased 120 acres.

Those are the numbers, indisputably.

So what are the odds of Jeff's theory then being wrong....


Remember, Jeff's theory only works out if from a given size of 122 acres on the Land Plan, the EXACT acreages used in actual reality both to and from that Land Plan boundary works out to 2 acres, given that the other known is that Merion purchased 120.1 acres.

I'm overcome by an urge to rip out my hair and shout.    DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXACT GIVES AND TAKES MATHEMATICALLY HAVE TO ADD UP TO 2 ACRES?  THE FACT THAT THEY DO PROVES NOTHING.

I think it's realistic to assume that of a 122 acre plot of land, perhaps a factor of 1/5 could be used to determine what might constitue a reasonably acceptable "transfer" possibility.   In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that somoeone would trade half the property in a land swap, but you might swap out 25 acres or so when you're working with a larger area of 338 acres, so let's use 25.

But, you'd have to have both sides of the approximate boundary work out property, so the calculation would be approximately 1 in 25 and then 1 in 25 again, right?

Using an onlline odds calculator, the odds of Jeff's theory being wrong are 1 in 1225.


Like I said, I'm not a statistician, but perhaps someone who is can either verify or show me what I'm doing wrong here.  I THINK YOU'VE JUST PROVED  THAT YOU'RE NOT A STATISTICIAN.  OR, A MATHEMATICIAN

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Do you understand what I'm saying in my post above?

The article talks about Lloyd's actual purchase that was done in December 1911....it HAD to be written after then, and thus it HAD to be written AFTER the November 1910 Land Plan.   

Contending that they HAD the land in November yet didn't have it and still needed to trade for it AFTER December is impossible.

The "option" is in the form of two letters as I outlined above.   An offer of 117 acres in early November from Connell (HDC) to Merion, and an acceptance of that offer from President Evans (I'm not sure the date) sometime following.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

There are a number of things wrong with your 13 acre theory.

First, there is no record of Merion ever securing 130 acres in principle in any of the club documents.   The article didn't say that they secured 13 acres, it said they had an option.  117 acres is specifically mentioned.

Second, there would have been no need for Merion to approve purchase of 3 extra acres in April 1911 from the original agreement in principle to purchase 117 acres if they already had secured the land to the Johnson Farm boundary.  We've been over and over this point.  Give it up.  The three acres was the RR land.  Even Tom said it was.  Go back and reread his posts.

Third, this ignores the fact there is absolutely no record or other evidence that the Johnson Farm was ever sub-divided at the arbitrary Haverford College boundary and in my unanswered list of issues above I cite why that would have been absolutely ludicrous, incredibly short-sighted, and directly against Macdonald & Whigham's advice for them to have done so.  Of course, there is one piece of evidence that it was divided there - the Francis land swap story.  But, then that's an inconvenient truth that you have discarded.

Fourth, if the Johnson Farm had been previously subdivided as such, which it wasn't, then what "almost 120 acres" would Merion have been thinking they needed for golf in July 1910, when all that HDC actually owned at that time was the 140 acre Johnson Farm and the northeastern and southern quadrant of that farm added up to 119 acres?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Yes, it needed to net out to two acres, but only because we KNOW the Land Plan measures 122 acres and we KNOW they purchased 120.

So, if either of the gives or putbacks (out of a possible range of X acres on either side of the transaction) was different and not netting out to 2 acres, Jeff's theory wouldn't work.

What are the odds of that?

Just using a maximum swap of either side of the transaction at 5 acres (which is extremely conservative because you are arguing that they swapped 14 acres for 5), the odds of both of his calculations of gives and putbacks netting out to 2 acres is 1 in 45.

The odds of matching both 1 precise number of 5 possible and 1 precise number out of 14 = 1 in 171.   



p.s.

Tom does not agree it's the railroad land.   He believes it's the additional HDC land that moved the purchase from 117 acres secured to 120 purchased.    The Lloyd letter to members outlines the 2,500 price tag.

[JESII]

Mike,

As far as I can tell, I understand somewhere between everything and nothing of what you are throwing out there...

Jim,


Contending that they HAD the land in November yet didn't have it and still needed to trade for it AFTER December is impossible.

I think you may be right...Merion already had their 117 acres secured prior to December 1910.