[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Keep telling yourself your logic is irrefutable. Maybe you will convince yourself its true.  Basically, your double negative thinking says nothing at all.  If we don't have evidence, we can't use it for any position, really.

And by all means, keep calling me names.  And arguing the obtuse.  and misrepesenting what I say to keep that argument going.  And misstate my words and rephrase them 100 times worse than I mis state yours.  And insult me 100 X what I insult you.  And by all means continue to insult all of our intelligence with your posting style and content.  And keep screaming to anyone who will listen that I must be dumb as stump.

Bless your little hear, Patrick!   In Texas, we give New Yorkers the benefit of the doubt. We know that you don't even know that you are being incredibly rude.  Its just the way of (some) New Yorkers. 

For all your yelling and screaming in green type, basically, the only irrefutable part of your logic is that it is designed to keep the argument going.  I am just tired of that, and you in particular. Even Tom MacWood and I, while we disagree, did so civilly and with respect. 
 
BTW, I perfectly understand your point, no matter how many times you tell us I don't.  Its just that I disagree and believe it to be insignifgant for reasons I won't repeat.  The final routing is all that counts, no?  While I am not 100% sure that Barker did not have a major influence, and his work sure started to define the final boundaries of MCC, I am 99% sure that work after his superceded it.  The many routings of Jan 1911, the five after they visited CBM, etc.

Its that simple.  As I said, I am very comfortable in my 99% conclusions, and also willing to say I am wrong should new evidence come out.  I wish everyone, including you, the same peace of mind, even if you have different conclusions.

Sleep tight. 

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

If you can't produce what you need to produce on your side of the argument to win the debate, then all we have to go on is the majority report. What is illogical about that?

Please produce Barker's drawings and settle this once and for all.

[ed_getka]

At what point does the flogging of this long deceased nag cease?

I think the flogging is the point.

[Bryan Izatt]

More housecleaning....

The following was the subscription form attached to the November 15th Lloyd letter;



Following again is the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report which describes Connell's "Syndicate" holdings.   Would that syndicate be PALCO?  I don't think so.  I think that the Syndicate may have included both HDC and PALCO.  Strangely none of your documents mention PALCO even though they held the Johnson Farm until it was sold to Lloyd.




If I'm understanding this right, Connell with the PALCO syndicate made the initial informal offer in July 1910.   At the time they had roughly 300 acres but only about half (the 140 acre Johnson Farm?) was owned outright.   At the time PALCO owned the Johnson Farm and HDC owned the Connor Estate for a total of 207 acres.  Neither the 300 acres or the 50% make any sense.   It is clear at this time they do not have the Dallas Estate under option.  I have seen nothing that indicates that there was an option on the Dallas Estate or that there wasn't.  What have you seen that makes it clear?

Of those holdings, page 2 of the Site Commitee report states that Merion will probably require almost 120 acres for the golf course.

Sometime afterwards, HDC was formed.  Nope, HDC was incorporated in June 1909 and in the same month acquired the Connor Estate.

In October, the Dallas Estate was purchased by HDC.

In early November, Lloyd, Atterbury, and others of the HDC syndicate purchased the whole shebang of the now 338 acres from PALCO under the corporate title of HDC.   Nope, the Taylor and Davis Estates weren't purchased until early 1911.  Do you have any evidence that HDC took over PALCO?  I haven't seen anything, although it seems likely they did.   At that time, as part of the deal, Merion "secured" 117 acres for $85,000, whatever that means.  ***EDIT*** I just re-read Lloyd's HDC stock offering letter of November 15th, 1910 and in it he says "There will be acquired by the company five tracts of land, aggregating approximately 338 acres...", which indicates to me that it hadn't happened yet.  Strangely, in the Evans letter that went with the Lloyd letter, the site committee reports that the syndicate "have acquired" the 338 acre tract.  Strange that two letters from the same people on the same day would contradict each other.  Perhaps it's not the reporters who were getting the story wrong.  Maybe it was the sources - Lloyd et al.

In December, Lloyd took title of 161 acres under his own name (and his wife)   Nope, his wife is not mentioned in the deed.  based on Cuyler's advice. ***EDIT*** I'm trying to find out from Tom Paul whether he took title under his own name for HDC, or for Merion.   The deed doesn't say either.  If Tom says one or the other, can he produce the document that proves it?

In April 1911, Merion's Board approved an additional purchase of 3 acres at $7,500.   ***EDIT*** They also approved the land swap of "land ALREADY PURCHASED for land ADJOINING".  The additional purchase was never executed and we neither of us have any document that proves what it was.  There is also no evidence as to what swap they were talking about in April 1911.  You've inferred that it was the Francis swap, but there is no evidence that I've seen to define the Thompson resolution.

In May 1911, Merion leased 3 acres of railroad land adjacent to the clubhouse on a perpetual lease of $1 per year.

In July 1911, Merion purchased 120.01 acres for $85,000


Does that sound correct? See points above.  I'm trying to get all this together in a time line, so that it's clear, but it's tedious going.


p.s. to Bryan - Tom Paul does not believe the 3 acres approved for purchase in April 1911 is the railroad land and believes he was mistaken prior.

OK.  Thanks.  I agreed with his first interpretation.  And, I still do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

If MCC is now a total of 123 acres, wouldn't that prove that the 3 acres was not the RR land, purchased later? If it's 120 acres (well, plus the Haverford land later bought for the range) then it would have to be the RR land, right?

[henrye]

Pat, I’m not questioning your debating prowess or your right to do so, I just think you could be more effective by taking a less inflammatory tone.  When you personalize such as........

Jeff, you've sunk to moronic lows.
You've misstated my position once again.

I think you could have been more persuasive by removing the first comment and simply stating.....

You've misstated my position once again.

Just a suggestion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan/Jim,

While your advice is welcomed re: just ignoring anything here but our attempt at a productive conversation, I doubt either of you would be able to do the same when the target of the screaming, ranting, raving, and insulting is you.

Bryan...I'll look forward to your timeline, because that was my honest, objective attempt on the facts as I understand them based on what info I have.   I would agree that the financial dealings are very confusiing to say the least, but I would ask for your understanding that I'm not trying to somehow purposefully misrepresent them in any way.  

At the point we can all just agree on the basic facts and timings of the land dealings, perhaps me, you, Jim, Jeff, and anyone else hoping to help make sense of it can jump in but for now I think it's healthier to just avoid most of the shouting.

At least both Jeff and I are convinced that you are trying to get to a basic understanding of what the factual information suggests is true without an agenda.   But one thing I think absolutely needs to be included in any timeline as first hand information as we try to figure out how much land they might have been dealing with is Hugh Wilson's early February letter to Piper & Oakley that says they have 117 acres.

I will say upfront that I believe the Francis Land Swap happened after the November Land Plan, but want to at least fully and fairly vet other possible theories (such as the "130 acre" theory) to see what the facts suggest to be true.   I think it's unlikekly without more information or a "smoking gun" for anybody to ever 100% prove their theory, but as Jeff mentioned, I think we can intelligently and civilly deal in reasonableness and probabilities.  

However, I'm doubtful we're going to be able to do that productively here with all of those with agendas trying to create meaningless distractions.   Some would rather argue that we first need to explain why Lloyd would appoint Wilson to design his course, apparently not seeing the irony of the fact that we know H.G. Lloyd himself served as an associate member under Hugh Wilson's direction as a member of the committee that both Richard Francis and Hugh Wilson (and many others) told us was charged with laying out and constructing the new golf course.  

The other irony is that it's much less surprising that Merion would put Wilson in charge of routing the course on paper or in the field than what everyone AGREES he was assigned directorial responsibility to accomplish...the construction, shaping, seeding, and grow in of Merion's new golf course, which especially at that time was the REAL technical, tricky, risky work.  

Hundreds of club members back then "designed" courses for their clubs as far as putting together just a paper routing or staking out a meadow.   Hell, even I did a 2-hour routing of the Johnson Farm.      

But "constructing" a golf course of any quality that would be playable, drainable, maintanable, firm, have consistent, growing turf....that's what everyone was mostly struggling with back then, especially on inland clay!

This is especially ironic when one considers that THIS is the area that Wilson conceded he and his committee were total novices; construction and agronomy, when he said;

The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know.

So the basic question itself is misplaced.   Rather than express dismay that Merion would have asked Hugh Wilson to design their new golf course, a reflective understanding of golf course history of the time should express far greater shock and surprise that a complete construction and agronomic novice leading a committee of complete construction and agronomic novices would be put in charge of CONSTRUCTING Merion's new golf course!  

Yet, that is undisputed historic fact.

The truth is, anyone can route a golf course on paper.    The early British professionals showed that time and again as they went from town to town and did "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" and 99% of these courses, while functional in helping to spread the game, ranged from abysmal to decent.   Virtually ALL of them were completely redesigned or left abandoned in the dustbin of history, most by the 1920s.

NGLA changed that model in this country and everyone who knew anything about golf understood that.

So to paraphrase David Letterman, perhaps the #1 answer why Merion picked Hugh Wilson to design Merion is simply because they wanted the best.   The best was not a one-day hatchet job by some foreign "expert" who would then move on down the line to the next group of starry eyed novices, but instead "the best" was proven to be a long, dedicated, academic, and exhausting effort by men who would BE THERE, and work every day of their free time to nurture, and grow, and evolve, and refine, and perfect their course, just like their amateur friend CB Macdonald had done at NGLA.

Thanks.


One minor correction - Merion today is NOT 123 acres.   The course that opened in 1912 was 123 acres.  

Land changes of numerous types including the acquistion of land south of the creek that created today's holes 11, & 12 in 1924 took place after.

[JESII]

How in the world does a crippled old Italian from North Jersey get so many guys out on the edge of the bridge?

I can't imagine how I'll deal with Patrick once I get him 2 or 3 down if we ever get on the golf course together...and I will get you 2 or 3 down...

[JESII]

Let me say this, and Bryan please correct me if I overstate your position...

I think Mike, Tom and Wayne have stated their very strong belief in both the timing and the actors in the initial routing and design of Merion East...Wilson and his committee and beginning in early 1911 with maybe a little poking around in 1910 but nothing substantive.


David Moriarty and Tom Macwood believe it defies logic for the people of Merion to assign this committee based on their collective inexperience (most notably the chairman) and feel that the inclusion of CBM and/or HH Barker in the early stages justifies pursuing a theory that one or both of these more experienced men must have done the lions share of the routing and specific hole placements as well as advising on the construction techniques once the "construction committee" got digging...


Pat, in his inimitable way, doesn't have a theory hashed out yet but refuses to let Mike close the door on certain aspects of the conversation because they are not necessarily 100% carved in stone undeniable facts. Pat doesn't care who it is that actually did all this stuff, and wants to keep the conversation open to any and all opinions until each facet, or the whole thing, can be closed with certainty for everyone.  Perhaps these real working topo maps are all that wll settle him.


Bryan and I agree for the most part with Wayne, Tom and Mike on the actors and their role but are having a hard time with the timeling being pushed.

The debate is clearly frustrating, but in that context I think, Mike, you should feel comfortable trying to discuss the facts and timelines with Bryan and I and perhaps we can find a logical fit that also satisfies the club documents...and we should hope like hell the green painting monster forgets his log-in name...

[Mike_Cirba]

Finally, in looking up how Hugh Wilson characterized the construction and agronomic knowledge of he and his committee, I realized that his actual 1916 essay was never actually put on the original "In My Opinion" piece here, but instead paraphrased and characterized.

Now that the Richard Francis first-person essay is now here as well, I thought it might be interesting to compare the two, especially as they both use the terms "lay out".

Careful observers will also note that in no way does Wilson indicate that he wasn't involved with the new golf course effort prior to 1911 as has been oft mischaracterized and misrepresented here.  He simply states that in early 1911 the club apponted him to a committee with Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, and Toulmin to construct a new course and then goes on to tell us what that work entailed.  


  “The Merion Cricket Club played golf on leased property for nearly twenty years and as is usual in this country the land became so valuable the club was forced to move. This experience showed the advantage of permanency; so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee (Messrs, Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson) to construct a new course on the 125 acres which had been purchased. The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I later saw in England and Scotland confirmed Mr Macdonald’s teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such a the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in their entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their courses.
      Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens, and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land.
After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing in and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens, we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks.
      We opened the course September 14th, 1912, just a year after seeding…..”

[JESII]

Mike,

In response to a query in your post 2252, I belive Merion thought they had 117 acres as well and that the 130 number is only important because:

1) Lloyd had an option on it
2) The math fits if we carve off the northern rectangle (10.5 acres) and all the western land north of #2
3) It seems more logical to me that a preliminary boundary would have been a straight line as opposed to the curving road on the November Plan
4) It enables LIFS


Earlier yesterday you were hoping to lay out an agreeable set of facts, we're there...you seemed to have a battery of questions based on that agreement...Fire Away!

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

If MCC is now a total of 123 acres, wouldn't that prove that the 3 acres was not the RR land, purchased later? If it's 120 acres (well, plus the Haverford land later bought for the range) then it would have to be the RR land, right?

Jeff, if by now, you mean 2009, then Merion has more than 123 acres, even excluding the range.  They acquired bits and pieces along other boundaries over time.  I forget the exact number, but it's in the back posts.

The 3 acre purchase, whatever it was, didn't happen as described in the Thompson resolution.  There is no deed in that time frame for 3 acres for $7,500 or any other amount.  They did lease the RR 3 acres the next month which persuades me that the 3 acre purchase related to the RR land, but others disagree.  For now, I think we have to agree to disagree on this point.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

As regards those three acres in April 1911, I do wish we had more information about what it technically and or legally meant in real-estate terminology to "Secure" property.

For instance, we know that Merion's documents indicate they "secured" 117 acres sometime around November 1910, although from a deed perspective that seems meaningless.   I do think one could reasonably assume, however, that Merion's Board of Governors would have to formally approve that securing of 117 acres of land at that time.

We also know they "purchased" 120 acres in July 1911, so I don't think it's surprising to assume that at some point the Merion Board of Governors also needed to approve the additional "securing" of 3 acres prior to that purchase of what would then be 120 acres, which is what Tom Paul and I believe the approval of an additional 3 acre purchase in the Thompson Resolution in April 1911 reflected.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is the time line as best I've gathered it.  I need to tidy up the presentation, but feel free to suggest changes, adds and deletions.  I'll try to accommodate and record them in this one post.  Preferably not speculations.

When		What		Source
Mar. 15, 1907		Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company (PALCO) incorporated.		Pennsylvania Department of State
Feb. 21, 1907		Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co. (PALCO) acquire the Johnson Farm from Gebhard Fecht for $48,000.  This is the beginning of the assembly of the 338 acre HDC development.		Deed
Jun. 14, 1909		Haverford Development Company (HDC) was incorporated with $100,000 par value.                                                       Subscribers: J. E. Tatnall (68 shares) J. R. Connell (66 shares) E. W. Nicholson (66 shares)		Pennsylvania Department of State
June 24, 1909		Haverford Development Company (HDC) acquires 67 acre Connor Estate from Land Title and Trust Company.		Deed
Jun. 10, 1910		Sometime before June 10, Joseph Connell, on his own account, retains H. H. Barker to inspect the Haverford property, sketch the  property and provide a rough lay-out of a course.  On June 10, 1910, Barker inspected the property and submitted a letter, sketch of the property and lay-out of the course to Connell.		A transcription of Barker’s letter to Connell is included in report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board
Jun. 29, 1910		Sometime before June 29, Griscom invites Macdonald and Whigham to come over from New York to give the benefit of their experience.  On June 29, Macdonald writes to Lloyd giving his view of the merits and issues with the property and his ideas on a 6,000 yard course.		Report by MCC golf site search committee to the Board and Macdonald letter
Jul. 1, 1910		The MCC Site Committee reports to the Board that its attention has been called to an approximately 300 acre tract, half owned and half optioned by a Syndicate represented by Joseph Connell, that they considered for the golf course.  (At this time, the Syndicate through PALCO and HDC own the Johnson Farm and the Connor Estate respectively, totalling 207 acres.  The remaining properties that comprise the 338 acre HDC development, are the Dallas Estate, the Davis Estate and the Taylor estate, totalling 135 acres.  There is no information yet available about which of these properties were optioned at that time.  Clearly the half owned vs  half optioned statement appears to be incorrect.)[/color)		Site Committee report to the Board
Jul. 1, 1910		The site committee reported that Connell had offered (presumably some time before July 1) 100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course for $825 an acre.   The 100 acres would cost $82,500.		Site Committee report to the Board
Jul. 1, 1910		The site committee further notes that they think it is probable that nearly 120 acres would be required for Merion’s purposes and that if it could be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, it would be a wise purchase.		Site Committee report to the Board
Jul. to Nov. 1910		Merion and HDC negotiate the land deal for the golf course		Inferred from the original offer in July and the securing of 117 acres in November.
Oct. 31, 1910		Rothwell buys the Dallas Estate from the executors of the late David Dallas’ will, for $21,020.		Deed
Nov. 9, 1910		Rothwell sells the Dallas Estate to HDC for $1 and subject to a mortgage of $14,020.		Deed
Nov. 9, 1910		Haverford Development Company sells two parcels totalling 4 acres of the Connor Estate back to the Land Title and Trust Company for $25,000.		Deed
Nov. 15, 1910		Lloyd solicits MCC members to buy HDC stock up to $150,000 to enable purchase and development of  a 338 acre tract.  He describes the 338 acres as being comprised of 5 tracts and says the will be acquired in the future.  The 5 tracts are: Johnson Farm  140 137/1000 ac. Dallas Estate    21 ac. Taylor Estate    56 ac. Davis Estate      58 ac. Connor Estate   63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totalling 4 ac. sold to Land Title and Trust Co. on November 9, 1910) Total                338 137/1000 ac. In this time frame, PALCO owns the Johnson Farm and HDC owns the Connor Estate, while the Dallas Estate has just been purchased a couple of weeks before by HDC.  The Taylor Estate and Davis Estate appear to have been under option.		Lloyd letter to MCC members.
Nov. 15, 1910		Some time before November 15, MCC secures 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000 for the golf course and reports it to the membership on November 15.		Allen Evans letter to the MCC members.
Nov. 15, 1910		Contemporaneously with securing the 117 acres for the golf course Lloyd also reportedly secures an option on an additional 13 acres bringing the total for the golf course to 130 acres.		Two newspaper stories from January 1911.
November 15, 1910		In the letter from Allen Evans to MCC members, attached to the Lloyd letter referred to above, of the same date,   it is noted that the $85,000 price is a good deal made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club, have acquired  (which contradicts the attached letter, which says they will acquire) a tract of 338 acres, under the name of Haverford Development Co.  This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property - a plan of the property is enclosed.		President Allen Evan's November 15,1910 letter to the membership
Nov. 1910		Tom P. reports that there was an exchange of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC optioning the 117 acres for the MCC golf course.		Tom Paul’s report of letters between Nickelson of the HDC and president Evans of MCC
Dec. 1910		Tom P. reports that there was a letter sent from Cuylers to Lloyd suggesting he take the 161 acres of the the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate into his own name to make it esier ti adjust boundaries.		Tom Paul’s report of a letter from Cuylers to Lloyd
3rd week of Dec. 1910		Cuylers gets the MCC Golf Association Company set up with officers, with a certain amount of stock and registered.		NA
Dec. 16, 1910		161 acres comprised of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate was transferred from HDC to a man by the name of Rothwell  for $1.00.		Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 16, 1910.
Dec. 19, 1910		Three days later Rothwell transferred the 161 acre property to Lloyd.		Reflected in a deed dated Dec. 19, 1910
Still under debate		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.		Francis reminisces in 1950 US Open Program
Jan. 6, 1911		HDC acquires the 56 acre Taylor Estate		Inferred from Deed
Jan. 11, 1911		Wilson appointed to chairmanship of the Construction Committee and they hold their first meeting of January 11, 1911.		Tom Paul reports from MCC minutes
Feb. 2, 1911		Haverford Development Company acquires 58.097 acre Davis Estate from J. Lewis and Carrie Davis.		Deed
Second Week of Mar. 1911		“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......" "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.		MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911
Apr. 6, 1911		On April 6th, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day… “		MCC Minutes, April 19, 1911
Apr. 19,1911		Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.………….. and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500 ( we have always referred to as the P&W railroad property  ……..  but the club wouldn't actually buy that land from the P&W Railroad ……. until over a half century later)		Thompson's board resolution
July 19, 1911		HDC reacquires from Lloyd, the 41 acres of the Johnson Farm left after MCCGA took their 99 acre part.		Inferred from Deed
Jul. 19, 1911		Lloyd transferred 120.01 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to Rothwell who transferred it to the MCC Golf Association Company the same day.  The purchase is encumbered with a mortgage of $85,000.		July 21, 1911 deed

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

As regards the 130-acre theory, I'm going to try and phrase my questions as clearly and simply as I can given what we agree are the agreed upon facts as laid out yesterday.   Here they are again;

1) Every one of the news accounts, as well as the official Merion documents mention that the club secured 117 acres by the early November 1910 timeframe.  On a related note, Tom Paul has relayed the the offer letter from Connell of HDC to Merion was dated early November 1910.   All of the news accounts I posted were after the November 15, 1910 Bond Solicitation letter from Merion to their members.

2) The most credible of the news accounts that mentions 13 additional acres under option again states that Merion has purchased 117 acres outright, and that Lloyd has another 13 on option for them.   The other news account incorrectly reports the total acreage as well as the price per acre Merion paid, as well as other items reported erroneously.

3) The combination of the Johnson Farm land with an artificial border drawn at the boundary of the Haverford College Land measures 108 acres, and the Dallas Estate measures 21 acres, which makes for 129 acres.

4) The northeastern and southern quadrants of the Johnson Farm measure 119 acres.

5) The 130x190 land of the triangle that Francis references is 4.8 acres.   The overall rectangle of Johnson Farm land above the Haverford College boundary is 10.5 acres, meaning the "unusued" portion of that landform is 5.7 acres

6) The leased 3 acres of Railroad land (transaction was May 1911) was not part of the HDC deal and can be discounted for our immediate purposes.  

7) Although we know the total course opened in 1912 was 123 acres, the magic number we're trying to work towards is the 120.1 acre purchase Merion bought in July 1911.

 In July 1910, before HDC had the Dallas Estate under option, Merion reported that they'd probably require almost 120 acres for their golf course.

9) In December 1910, H.G. Lloyd took title to 161 acres, which included the entire Johnson Farm(140 acres) and the Dallas Estate.(22 acres)

10) In July 1911, Merion purchased 120 acres of land formerly owned by HDC, and later by Lloyd.


To start discussion, allow me to ask you and Bryan a few questions;

1) Could you identify where you think the "nearly 120 acres" was located that Merion thought they required for their new course as of July 1910?

2) Could you identify where you think the 117 acres that Merion secured in November 1910 were located?

3) Where do you think the difference between the 117 acres Merion secured in November 1910 and the 120 acres they purchased might have been located?

4) If the 130-acre theory presumes that Merion at some point swapped the 13-14 acres of land on the far side of GHR across from the clubhouse for the 4.8 acres of land where today's 15th green/16th tee are located, how would it have been possible for Merion to simultaneously have secured 117 acres of land (which I'm presuming includes at least some of the triangle land), while still somehow retaining option on an additional 13 acres (which I'm presuming that the 130-acre theory assumes is the land across from GHR)?

5) The Thompson Resolution of April 1911 describes a swap of "land already purchased for land adjoining", along with requesting approval of three addtiional acres.   To what do you think they might be referring to.

Thanks for your help in advancing the discussion...

[JESII]

To start discussion, allow me to ask you and Bryan a few questions;

1) Could you identify where you think the "nearly 120 acres" was located that Merion thought they required for their new course as of July 1910?

I think in July 1910 the 120 acres was an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm (south and northeast sections equaling 119) and the Dallas Estate 21 or 22...so a subset of about 140 total.  I think it's reasonable to conclude that if Barker looked at the property, CBM and HJW inspected and advised on the property, and the Merion committee were studying their options pretty diligently AND old man Dallas was dead and Mrs. Dallas was hoping to sell the Estate they knew they could get it and the land would be needed. If the deed finalizing the Dallas sale is October 1910, I'd bet it's safe that they began that process in the summer

2) Could you identify where you think the 117 acres that Merion secured in November 1910 were located?

The Johnson Farm south of Ardmore, the Dallas Estate, and an undefined subset of the Johnson Farm northeast section...the formal boundary having room to wiggle, but with a dollar value per acre already tied down at ~$725...including A triangle slicing into the northern rectangle that goes up to College Ave.

3) Where do you think the difference between the 117 acres Merion secured in November 1910 and the 120 acres they purchased might have been located?

Along GHR...although not necessarily west of the border of that Johnson Farm original western boundary...Lloyd owned that whole thing and at some point they had to get it back to HDC to sell as home lots. I think they zeroed in on 117 for the specific reason that they knew where the holes were going to go...ie, the first green was going out into that corner and the 15th fairway was going to swing out west when they drew up the November 1910 Land Plan...what they didn't know was the exact length they wanted #1 to be, or the exact width the 15th fairway and green were going to be...those two areas very likely resulted in a net enclosed area of 120 acres...plus the RR land.

4) If the 130-acre theory presumes that Merion at some point swapped the 13-14 acres of land on the far side of GHR across from the clubhouse for the 4.8 acres of land where today's 15th green/16th tee are located, how would it have been possible for Merion to simultaneously have secured 117 acres of land (which I'm presuming includes at least some of the triangle land), while still somehow retaining option on an additional 13 acres (which I'm presuming that the 130-acre theory assumes is the land across from GHR)?

I don't think Merion swapped 14 for 5, I think Lloyd took option on that land so he could make some of those decisions...I do not believe Culyer's letter date (December 1910 IFIRC) was the first day they all thought a movable boundary would help...I think Merion swapped for the triangle for an equal amount of land across from the clubhouse with neither boundary being formalized until later...They had previously agreed to 117 acres and were under that assumption until sometime in the spring when they had a real clear idea of where the road could go and learned that they had enclosed 120 acres.

5) The Thompson Resolution of April 1911 describes a swap of "land already purchased for land adjoining", along with requesting approval of three addtiional acres.   To what do you think they might be referring to.

I think my opinions above probably cover that...I can't tie down the RR land deal at all, one way or another...Bryan asked a good question of Tom pages ago about a note in the May meeting minutes regarding the April approval for $7,500 being unnecessary anymore based on a better lease arrangement...short of a note like that I would guess the purchase of 3 acres was the result of the designing up phase of holes 1 and 15...and/or possibly the need to own half of GHR which was about to be built.

Thanks for your help in advancing the discussion...

Thank you for sticking with it, tell Tom what I told him on the phone yesterday...Man up and get back in the game!

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Thanks for your tremendous help in laying all of that out for us.

I have one suggested alteration (I'd point out that one of the 130 acre articles also stated that 350 acres was available and that we're not sure if the two articles were from separate writers and papers), and I'd also add that Hugh WIlson's first letter to P&O of February 1, 1911 states that they are working with 117 acres and sends hiim a topographical map to that effect.

I also just had a phone call with Tom Paul which I think clarifies a few matters for me that I will try to synopsize later, but for now I need to run to Philadelphia myself for the day.

Thanks again...


Jim,

I'll read your answers carefully and respond later, hopefully by tonite.   

I'll also summarize my discussion with Tom Paul that should add a bit to our mutual understanding.

[JESII]

Two concessions required to reach my opinions...the actual reporting date (whether in public news reports or private club documents) of an event follows the actual event by some period of time...and secondly, we'll need some clarity on the comments by Wilson about laying out several courses prior to going to NGLA in March and then reconfiguring 5 plans after their return and before CBM's April 6 visit.

The last thing I want to do is discount any of the hard writen words these guys left us.

Do we have any context for those words of Wilson?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Can you answer the same five questions?

Thamks!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

My understanding is that the comments referred to here as the "Wilson Report", was actually a transcription of a report of Hugh Wilson's committee read at the April 1911 Merion Board of Governor's meeting read into the record by Robert Lesley, who chaired the Merion Golf Committee and as such attended Board level meetings.  My undestanding is that Wilson's Committee being temporary in nature reported up through Lesley's standing and permanent Golf Committee.

That is what accounts for the so-called confusion mentioned in the use of differing pronouns, as in "Your committee wishes to report that after creating many plans, they went up...", and so on.

As Wilson mentioned in his 1916 essay, his committee was formalized in Jan 1911,(he was likely voted or named Chairman at that time or perhaps at their first formal meeting) and it sure sounds as though they were busy as hell between then and that April 19, 1911 Board Meeing.  It was their first Board level report that I'm aware of and seems to have been a summary of their activities, including their trip to NGLA, as well as proposing that the Board approve their recommendation tos;  1) approve one of their plans that M+W thought was their best, 2) approve the swap of land already purchased for land adjacent, and 3) approve the purchase of 3 acres additional.

Is that what you were looking for?

Hope it helps...

[JESII]

It does, thanks...curious to hear if you think "laying out several plans" had to have happened in 1911 and also what you think reconfiguring 5 different plans after the March meeting might mean...what could these five plans have been?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I'm sitting in the Philly airport dropping off...perhaps I should have dropped by Merion while I'm in town for one day and show them my 2-hour proposed replacement routing?   

In any case, I've been reading Bryan's timeline and I'm not sure I've ever seen/read the exact wording of the Thompson Resolution during that April 19, 1911 meeting before today...not sure how/when I missed it, but I think it's relevant to your questions...don't you?

I'm typing on a blackberry right now, but the short answer is NO, I don't read that as necessarily assuming the initial "many layouts" all had to have happened after Jan 1911 and the formation of the committee, although I would say it's a higher likelihood based on other factors...

More later...

[Mike_Cirba]

One other thought/question for now...

Perhaps someone can confirm or dispute but wasn't the 1916 essay that Hugh Wilson wrote written for an audience primarily concerned with agronomic and construction issues...perhaps the beginnings of the USGA agronomic assn?, and related to his work woth Piper + Oakley?

If so, I believe that would certainly create a far, FAR different perspective on the areas Wilson focused on as well as the slant of the essay from what has been characterized here previously, where the essay has been used as evidence that Wilson and the Committee's total responsibilities involved only course construction...  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If you can't produce what you need to produce on your side of the argument to win the debate, then all we have to go on is the majority report. What is illogical about that?

Plenty.
Let me try to explain it to you using small words.

Mike Cirba declared that NO element of Barker's routing/plan found its way into the initial design of Merion.

I pointed out that absent Barker's routing/plan he couldn't make a difinitive statement to that end (drawing that conclusion).

I don't need Barker's routing/plan in order to make my statement logical and/or valid.

Only through the production of Barker's routing/plan can we learn what did and/or what didn't make it into the initial golf course.

Hopefully, you'll understand that.

Please produce Barker's drawings and settle this once and for all.

That's one of the dumbest statements anyone's made on this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Keep telling yourself your logic is irrefutable. Maybe you will convince yourself its true.  

I don't need to convince myself, I already understand the logic, as does Chipoat and others.
You're the one still floundering.

Basically, your double negative thinking says nothing at all.  

It's NOT a double negative.
I'm afraid you're confused again.

If we don't have evidence, we can't use it for any position, really.

Let me phrase it properly for you.  It's really quite simple.
If you don't have Barker's routing/plan/design you CAN'T declare that none of the elements of that design found their way into the initial golf course.

Nowl you've already stated that elements of Barker's routing probably found their way into the initial golf course.
Me ?  I don't know how much, if any at all, of Barker's routing/plan/design found its way into the initial golf course, but, I'd like to try to find out.

And by all means, keep calling me names.  


YOU INITIATED THE NAME CALLING.
You started by calling me a jerk and a knucklehead, a phrase I regard as a term of endearment in my neighborhood.
You continued your sniping for some time, so don't pull the holier than thou and you're the poor victim attitude.
That Texas sun must be taking its toll on your memory banks.

And arguing the obtuse.  
and misrepesenting what I say to keep that argument going.  
And misstate my words and rephrase them 100 times worse than I mis state yours.  

Would you be so kind as to point out WHERE I misstated your words ?
I've pointed out dozens of examples where you've misstated mine.

And insult me 100 X what I insult you.

You started the insults.
Don't start whining because you don't like turnabout.
  
And by all means continue to insult all of our intelligence with your posting style and content.  

I didn't insult "all of our intelligence", only the intelligence or lack of intelligence of those who are incapable of following geometric like logic.


And keep screaming to anyone who will listen that I must be dumb as stump.


Someone else must have called you "dumb as stump", I certainly didn't.
I stated that you were "like a fool" and "blind to the substance" .....

Here's the exact quote:

The foundation of my position is LOGIC.

Like a fool, you ignore the geometric purity of the logic, choosing instead, to label my position as solely argumentative.
Clearly, you're blind to the substance, prefering to rale against the form

[/b][/size][/color]

Bless your little hear, Patrick!   In Texas, we give New Yorkers the benefit of the doubt. We know that you don't even know that you are being incredibly rude.  Its just the way of (some) New Yorkers.

First, I'm not a New Yorker, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Second, you were the one of the two of us who initiated the name calling and rude behavior.
Now, you're the pot calling the kettle black ?
How convenient.  

For all your yelling and screaming in green type, basically, the only irrefutable part of your logic is that it is designed to keep the argument going.  

I haven't yelled and screamed, that's just another distortion and misrepresentation of the truth on your part.

The logic employed is irrefutable to anyone with an IQ over 90.

The use of the logic is not to perpetuate a discussion, but rather, to point out an error in facts, reasoning and conclusions.
That you don't see that is rather sad.

I am just tired of that, and you in particular.

Ask me if I care.

Even Tom MacWood and I, while we disagree, did so civilly and with respect.  


Hey Bozo, you were the one that started calling me names.
You were the one who went over the civility and respect line first, headfirst !

In case you've forgotten, why don't you revisit your reply # 1880, 1904, 1977, 2031, 2068, 2079, 2230 and 2238 for starters..
 
BTW, I perfectly understand your point, no matter how many times you tell us I don't.  
Its just that I disagree and believe it to be insignifgant for reasons I won't repeat.  

The final routing is all that counts, no?  

Not when you're trying to ascertain authorship.

While I am not 100% sure that Barker did not have a major influence, and his work sure started to define the final boundaries of MCC, I am 99% sure that work after his superceded it.  


But, you don't know if his work or elements of his work represents the core values in the final work.

The many routings of Jan 1911, the five after they visited CBM, etc.

Again, without the Barker routing/plan and the other five plans you can't determine how much of Barker's work flowed through to the other plans.

Perhaps none of it.
Perhaps a good deal of it.

My point is that you can't decide in either direction because you don't have the factual foundation to make that determination.

Its that simple.  As I said, I am very comfortable in my 99% conclusions, and also willing to say I am wrong should new evidence come out.  


I'm happy that you're comfortable with 99 % of your conclusions.
I HAVEN'T drawn very many conclusions because I don't think sufficient evidence has been produced that would allow that luxury.

I wish everyone, including you, the same peace of mind, even if you have different conclusions.

Again, I haven't drawn my conclusions, nor was I ever predisposed to a conclusion in the first place
Unlike some, I'm anxious to discover more pertinent information.

Sleep tight.

You too  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()