News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2175 on: July 03, 2009, 06:47:13 PM »
How in the world does a crippled old Italian from North Jersey get so many guys out on the edge of the bridge?

Jim, it's rather easy.


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...

Like Ran, I suppose, if we play enough matches that eventually you'll get to that position.
Ran had me 5 down after the first 7 at Plainfield.
Unfortunately for him, it was an 18 hole match, and when I rolled in a 40 footer for birdie on # 15 to go Dormie, the look on his face was priceless.  I'm really not very competitive, but, I'll try to make a match of it.

Hopefully, we'll get a chance to play in August or September when I plan on visiting TEPaul.
However, I'm not drinking the local water.
I've seen what it can do to peoples minds.

Maybe, when I visit, I'll bring your kids a puppy and a kitten.
That should keep you up at nights for another couple of months. ;D



Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2176 on: July 03, 2009, 08:31:50 PM »
Ok...so where were we?   ::) :-\ :-*

Think of the savings in green ink if I'd only written, "There is absolutely no evidence that Merion ever PURPOSEFULLY used ANY of H.H. Barker's rough pencil sketch routing from June 1910, and with the MCC Minutes indicating that many different golf course plans were conceived and revised during the following ten months, as well as their subsequent usage of Macdonald and Whigham as advisors, combined with no subsequent mention of Barker in any of the club's records, one has to ultimately conclude that there is very little chance that Barker's one-day routing efforts were even accidentally utilized in the golf course that was built and opened in September 1912."  

"In fact, as there is no mention of an enclosure containing Barker's pencil sketch routing actually being attached to the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Merion board, one has to fairly conclude that there is simply no actual evidence that the routing ever made it beyond the eyes of Connell, and probably the five men of the Merion Site Committee."
 ::)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 10:00:31 PM by MCirba »

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2177 on: July 03, 2009, 10:25:01 PM »
Tom Mac has asked me to post the following articles for him.

From the Philadelphia Press Nov 24 1910


New York Times Dec 11 1910


New York Tribune Dec 1 1910


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2178 on: July 03, 2009, 10:35:50 PM »
Interesting that the 4th round of the Atlanta tournament is on December 10th.   I read an article the other day that indicated he was in town well prior to the event.

Is the implication that Barker got on a train in NYC on December 1, stopped in Philly to create a routing for Merion in a day, and then got back aboard and headed to Atlanta?

Is that an example of what Tom MacWood is alluding to when he stated that Merion was looking for "the best"?  

I was thinking about this earlier today and something occurred to me.

What if Tom MacWood is correct....what would it possibly mean if Barker had done a one-day routing in December 1910?   Why should we automatically assume it was any good, or that it was ever used?    It would have been his first night out on the town away from his responsibilities at Garden City...What if Barker stopped in the Ardmore pub for a shot and a beer and came home stinking or stayed out and hit the red light district to sample the local talent?   I mean, who really knows?

So, we have to consider...what does the other contemporaneous evidence indicate?

Well, we do know that right after December Merion appointed a committee of their own, and we know they went to NGLA and the Merion minutes talk about the committee laying out "many plans" for the golf course, and at least five final versions by April 1911, and Macdonald and Whigham coming down for a day to help them pick their best plan, followed with the board finally approving one and then construction commenced.

Honestly, in today's world, if that happened, wouldn't everyone simply assume that the one-day routing submitted in December sucked, and that the club discarded it and went in another completely different direction?

In fact, it seems to me that if Barker produced a routing in December 1910, subsequent events over the next four months would strongly indicate that it was perhaps the final nail in the coffin of this whole idea of hiring a "professional" architect at Merion, which Alan Wilson tells us clearly was never done as relates to the architecture of the Merion East and West courses that was eventually built on the ground.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 10:48:03 PM by MCirba »

Peter Pallotta

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2179 on: July 03, 2009, 11:02:58 PM »
Mike -- You know, I once wrote a covering letter/resume that was a lot like the one Mr. Barker wrote, full of details and credentials and attempts at making a good impression. Of course, I never got an interview, let alone the job -- I was not the person they were lookng for; I daresay, I wasn't even the "type" of person they were looking for. Which brings me again to the same point I've been making recently (and one that only Patrick picked up on, if only to disagree with): Why would CBM be called in (later) if anyone had any faith in or use for an (earlier) Barker routing? And, if such a preliminary routing even existed, why would CBM provide Merion with the outline for that 6,000 yard course of his, a per-hole set of yardages that I think (it's safe to say) was a boiler-plate golf course that makes no mention of/reference to any of the principles of great golf course architecture as manifest in the classic holes of British links golf that CBM was aggressively promoting at that time?  And then, if any bit of that bolier-plate was being considered at all, why the intense period of work for the Wilson committee, and the two days of learning (and learned discussion) at NGLA, and then the creation of 5 different plans (I presume, five routings) for the course that was clearly the work of the committee? As I've suggested, it seems to me that everything else (everything previous) is cancelled out by the selection -- as detailed in the Merion minutes -- of a final plan from amongst those 5 created by the comittee, a selection CBM helped them make.  But as I say - I've made this same point 3 or 4 times now, and no one seems to think it's worth commenting on, so maybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something. That's not a plea for reassurance; I'm just wondering if the argument I'm making is that far off base (or that obvious).

Peter      
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 12:06:49 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2180 on: July 04, 2009, 01:46:05 AM »
Mike,

Thanks for posting the Wilson report from 1916.

Am I the only one who is tripping over the reference to 125 acres purchased.  At that point in time,

MCC hadn't purchased anything; they had secured 117 acres;

may have had an option on 13 more acres; and,

had Lloyd owning 161 acres. 

The lease of the 3 acres of RR land wouldn't happen for another 4 months, at least. 

So, what was Wilson talking about with 8 extra acres beyond the 117 or the 5 acres less than the 130 acres or 5 acres more than what MCC bought in July, 1911 or 3 acres more than the November land plan? 

Can these guys with all their press releases and letters and minutes and land plans not get on the same page with one number.   :o   

Seriously, though Mike, how would you explain 125 acres?

Also, near the end Wilson says they started construction in the spring - is spring Aprilish in Haverford?


Quote
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".

.....................................

  “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…..”

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2181 on: July 04, 2009, 01:55:22 AM »
Tom Mac/Neil,

It's hard to read the first article, but I was wondering, given the frequent misrepresentations that we seem to see in press reports from that time about Merion, is it possible that whoever wrote the story misunderstood the reference to Barker from his source at Merion, and that the reference to securing Barker might have referred to the work in July 1910 for Connell?   The rest of the paragraph talks about M&W thinking the course will be great too (in addition to Barker) which sounds consistent with other press reports, but other press reports of these events don't mention Barker as the future architect.  Is it possible that this guy misunderstood and got it wrong.  We could let Mike put it in his odds calculator.   ;)

 

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2182 on: July 04, 2009, 02:02:46 AM »
Jim,

If the enlarged text below from Pat refers to his nature as opposed to the state of his game, it may well be the biggest lie of all time on this site.   ;D


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

Jim, it's rather easy.


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...

Like Ran, I suppose, if we play enough matches that eventually you'll get to that position.
Ran had me 5 down after the first 7 at Plainfield.
Unfortunately for him, it was an 18 hole match, and when I rolled in a 40 footer for birdie on # 15 to go Dormie, the look on his face was priceless.  I'm really not very competitive, but, I'll try to make a match of it.

Hopefully, we'll get a chance to play in August or September when I plan on visiting TEPaul.
However, I'm not drinking the local water.
I've seen what it can do to peoples minds.

Maybe, when I visit, I'll bring your kids a puppy and a kitten.
That should keep you up at nights for another couple of months. ;D



Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2183 on: July 04, 2009, 02:14:31 AM »
Mike,

I've got some updating to do to the time line and then I'll get to your questions, but probably not until Sunday.

Re your request to include Hugh Wilson's first letter to P&O of February 1, 1911 and it's mention of 117 acres, I don't recall seeing that letter?  Can you post it, or is it one of the ones you've only been told about?  Can you at least get a quote of the relevant section and its context.  As you know, some of our number are sceptical (as are you) of things they don't see directly themselves.  And, of course some explanation of why Wilson said 125 acres in his report, if he was saying 117 to P&O.  He wasn't old enough to be having a senior moment.   ;)




Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2184 on: July 04, 2009, 09:34:34 AM »
Peter,

The exact same thing has happened to me, and Jeff Brauer also mentioned similar situations he knows personally.  You're on the right track, don't worry.  ;)

Bryan,

Hugh Wilson wrote that in 1916, so at that time they did have at least 120 acres purchased, along with another 3 acres leased by summer of 1912, and I'm not sure these other 2 transactions make up the difference to 125 acres by 1916, but they might;

10-22-1912
Charles Carver, Jr. sold .352 acres to Alfred B. Eaton who then conveyed the property to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association 78’x197’ along the south border of the Wheeler property in exchange for a 47’x323’ strip of ground west of the 2nd green

6-24-1914
Alexander Shand, Jr. conveyed 2915.04 sq. ft. to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association for $1.00 and other money

Also...

As regards the Hugh Wilson contention about 117 acres, I don't have the Piper & Oakley letter, but I know Tom MacWood, who does have those letters, has not contested Tom Paul's contention that Wilson told P&O in his Feb 1, 1911 letter that they had 117 acres and was sending along a topo map.    I'll see if I can't get an exact quote.

Also...

Like yourself, I have some more housecleaning to do that I probably won't complete til tonight or tomorrow, and that is summarizing a discussion I had with Tom yesterday that sheds a bit more light on Cuyler and exactly what was recommended, what "securing" meant, etc., so I'll get to that quickly I hope while the memoriies are still fresh.


All,

From the beginning, and the initial essay here on Golf Club Atlas, Hugh Wilson's own words have been used against him to contend that his only responsibilities for the creation of Merion East were in the areas of "construction" and agronomy.

Indeed, his words have been characterized as only focused on those efforts time and again, as if, "why would he only talk about those things if indeed this novice designed the course?".

In fact, in the original essay, his third paragraph in switch to talking about having responsibilities to "lay out" the golf course was presented not as what it truly was...an effort to step back from the initial question and momentarily expand the discussion to the more general area of his responsibilities, but instead, we were told that if we followed some Oxford dictionary definition of the term we would know that novice Wilson simply meant laying out the course "on the ground", and shouldn't have worried his pretty little head about more creative matters.  ;)   ::)

In fact, we never really did get to see Hugh WIlson's essay in its entirety in that essay, but only brief parts paraphrased and characterized by the author.   Yesterday, in looking for something specific, I came upon the ONLY copy of what Wilson wrote, posted by Tom Paul back in 2003..

It's brief, it's first-hand, it's timely and it's hard for me to understand why it wasn't included in full verbatim with the original essay, ALONG WITH THE CONTEXT of why it was written in the first place.   Here it is again;

“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…..”


In reading this essay for the first time in over five years, it occurred to me to ask simply, WHO was he talking to?   WHO was his audience?   WHO would be interested in the details of "harrowing in" and "breaking up soil"?  

Wilson's words had certainly been presented as if he was simply talking about his duties generally, and for a general audience and there is no footnote in David's essay to trace back the source of the essay.   But that suddenly didn't pass the sniff test.   So, I sent an email to Tom Paul who sent the following very telling response.


In the end of 1915 Piper and Oakley were in the process of writing a book on golf agronomy. They asked Hugh Wilson to write a chapter for them on his experience in 'growing turf in Philadelphia.'  Wilson, being the modest guy he seemed to be at first sort of demurred saying he was a terrible writer and was extremely busy with the Worker's Compenstion Act coming in (his insurance business).  But he agreed and he sent them a number of drafts all of which we have and the first one interestingly having a paragraph on how to build natural looking bunkers that he crossed out with a notation saying it was straying from the subject (agronomy).  I might used a scan of that crossed out paragraph in my Walker Cup program article if I have room because it is one of the few examples I've ever seen where Hugh Wilson ever wrote about golf course architecture.
 
So the article you refer to was on the subject of golf agronomy only and Wilson's experiences in that vein with the Merion courses.
 
Tantalizingly, in a "PS" in one of his letters to P&O he says it occurs to him that they might want him to write about how Merion acquired its ground and the financial arrangements of that move to Ardmore but as the fates of history would have it P&O did not even respond to his "PS"-----they just confirmed that golf agronomy in Philadelphia was the subject they would like him to write about.
 
That Wilson chapter is in P&O's book.
 
In my opinion (which I get from the flavor and tenor of Wilson's couple of hundred letters to P&O) Hugh Wilson was a very efficient and curious man and one who sort of liked to get to things yesterday.  He was also extremely polite and sort of jokey in an informal way but it seems to me he was pretty compartmentalized about the various things he did and that would explain why he rarely if ever spoke about or wrote about architecture to P&O, and not the least reason being P&O were botanists and agronomists and not golf course architects.  Piper did begin to get into writing about architecture (for the Bulletin) but that was much later and in the 1920s and most of that correspondence was with Alan Wilson and not Hugh.  Very few seem to understand how central Alan Wilson was to the creation of the USGA Green Section. He was the chairman of what was known as the USGA Green Committee which preceded the USGA Green Section and essentially set it up in the end of 1925 and 1926.  However, much to the dismay of P&O and the USGA Alan resigned from both the USGA Green Committee and the Executive Committee because of Hugh's sudden death and his need to take care of their insurance business.
 
It pisses me off that not just Hugh but particularly Alan and what he wrote has been dismissed by some on GCA.  Alan was a really impressive guy in golf and he was intimately connected to the goings on of not just Merion throughout but also Pine Valley.  There is no question that Alan and Hugh had a real thing about never serving on any committee together as they both considered that to be sort of filial overloading and just not appropriate. Both were truly honorable men reflective of that age and that interesting "amateur/sportsman" ethos.
 
Both Alan and Hugh were really respected in the world of American golf agronomy, particularly Hugh and they did not just stick to Philadelphia----they really got around, particularly Alan.  I guess it was in the family's blood because their other brother, Wayne, who lived in the Southwest proposed the use of crushed and rolled corn-husk greens to be used in the heat of the southwest (where the likes of bents and fescues could not survive).



Hopefully, this once and for all places Hugh Wilson's words intended for a very specific audience in their proper context, where they will never again be able to be used as a bludgeon against him here in some attempt at proving him simply a glorified construction foreman.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 09:43:56 AM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2185 on: July 04, 2009, 10:10:42 AM »

"There is absolutely no evidence that Merion ever PURPOSEFULLY used ANY of H.H. Barker's rough pencil sketch routing from June 1910, and with the MCC Minutes indicating that many different golf course plans were conceived and revised during the following ten months, as well as their subsequent usage of Macdonald and Whigham as advisors, combined with no subsequent mention of Barker in any of the club's records, one has to ultimately conclude that there is very little chance that Barker's one-day routing efforts were even accidentally utilized in the golf course that was built and opened in September 1912."  

Mike, could you show us the MCC minutes from June 1909 thru Sept 1912 that contain Wilson's routing/plan/design ?

Without Barker's routing/plan/design YOU DON'T know how much of it, or elements of it, made it into the subsequent routings, and the golf course in Sept of 1912.

To state that  "one has to ultimately conclude that there is very little chance tht Barker's one-day routing efforts were even accidently utilized in the golf coiurse that was built and opened in Sept of 1912", is an erroneous conclusion based upon the absence of supporting documentation.
It's a conclusion that YOU insist on drawing, irrespective how flawed it is.

Only after review of Barker's routing can any conclusions relative to whether elements of his routing were incorporated into the subsequent designs  and/or the golf course as of Sept 1912 be drawn.


"In fact, as there is no mention of an enclosure containing Barker's pencil sketch routing actually being attached to the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Merion board, one has to fairly conclude that there is simply no actual evidence that the routing ever made it beyond the eyes of Connell, and probably the five men of the Merion Site Committee."
 ::)

That's your conclusion.  One not shared by many, including Jeff Brauer.

Could you show us the 1909-1910-1911-1912 Board minutes that have Wilson's routing attached to them ?



Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2186 on: July 04, 2009, 10:12:16 AM »
Bryan Izatt,

I was refering to my golf game. 

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2187 on: July 04, 2009, 10:13:44 AM »
Patrick,

Happy 4th of July to you and your's.

Mike

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2188 on: July 04, 2009, 11:39:30 AM »

....why the intense period of work for the Wilson committee, and the two days of learning (and learned discussion) at NGLA, and then the creation of 5 different plans (I presume, five routings) for the course that was clearly the work of the committee? As I've suggested, it seems to me that everything else (everything previous) is cancelled out by the selection -- as detailed in the Merion minutes -- of a final plan from amongst those 5 created by the comittee, a selection CBM helped them make.  But as I say - I've made this same point 3 or 4 times now, and no one seems to think it's worth commenting on, so maybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something. That's not a plea for reassurance; I'm just wondering if the argument I'm making is that far off base (or that obvious).

Peter     

Peter,

I have made the same point.  I could be wrong, but I don't think Pat has addressed why this is so illogical conclusion and I would love him to do so, since he is the one arguing vociferiously that its possible that portions of Barker's routing MAY have made it in to the final.

Pat,

I know we both flared up there and I am sorry for my part.  Let's continue the debate, if you wish, on a more civil basis while we celebrate the freedoms we have in this country to participate in such debate.

To all, happy fourth of July!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2189 on: July 04, 2009, 04:25:48 PM »
From Wilson's article above:

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.

It struck me that one of the contributing factors the questions around the "Merion Legend" was that someone found the ship logs and found out Wilson went later to England than the club history says, thereby calling into question its authencity.

Well, here we have the man himself telling us that he went later.  If someone was trying to cover up the late trip, or his basic lack of knowledge about architecture, he certainly tells us right here that both were true.

As such, I think it says some later author simply wrote it wrong, as is the case with so much around MCC.  And, it calls into question the entire motivation of some to question the history of MCC, now that this document has been released in full to us. Had they seen this, would they still question all things MCC because of the supposed date of Wilson's GBI trip? :D
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2190 on: July 04, 2009, 06:00:06 PM »
I had asked Jeff to post this for me, but I'm not interested in some foolish nonsense where I have someone else do my talking for me while pretending like I no longer participate.    

Jeff,

If your post was directed at me, I really wish you'd bother to call me out by name if you want to ridicule me.
You wrote the following (my emphasis):

As such, I think it says some later author simply wrote it wrong, as is the case with so much around MCC.  And, it calls into question the entire motivation of some to question the history of MCC, now that this document has been released in full to us. Had they seen this, would they still question all things MCC because of the supposed date of Wilson's GBI trip?


Of course Wilson tells us when he traveled.  If you care to review it, you'll find that I explicitly note this in my essay, along with other supposed revelations on this never ending thread.  I cited the travel logs, but explicitly note that they are not needed to prove when he traveled.  WILSON'S OWN WORDS ESTABLISH when he traveled.   This is exactly why I looked into the travel logs a couple of years ago; because of what he said.   I wrote about this repeatedly from a couple of years ago when we first discussed it.  Yet Mike Cirba, Wayne Morrison, TEPaul, and many others refused to believe it even then, until the proof was absolutely overwhelming.

No one had ever bothered to take what Hugh Wilson said at face value before, because it did not fit in with the legend.    Everyone dismissed him just like you guys are dismissing Francis.  Because it does not fit in with the legend.

Also, before I figured out when the NGLA Meeting took place, these guys had it happening sometime in 1910 before they thought Wilson traveled, and they thought it only was about planning Wilson's trip.  THIS WAS THE CRUCIAL ERROR IN MERION'S HISTORY, NOT THE TRIP.   They went to NGLA so M&W could help them plan the lay out!  That is what both Wilsons said.   Even in 1911, M&W not only determined the final routing, they were a vital part of coming up with the plans from which they would chose!

As for the rest, your logic doesn't follow.  Merion can't even get this part of their history straight, yet we are supposed to take their word for the rest?    I don't get it.



ADDED:
 This is what is so INCREDIBLY EGREGIOUS about Tepaul and/or Wayne DOCTORING THE ALAN WILSON REPORT.   They took out the KEY SENTENCE, the one that establishes what they were doing at NGLA:  PLANNING THE LAYOUT OF MERION EAST.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 06:49:11 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2191 on: July 04, 2009, 10:41:51 PM »
Jeff,

At the time David wrote his essay, the date of the visit to NGLA was uncertain to all of us.   The subsequent finding of the MCC Minutes from 1911 by Wayne Morrison cleared up that matter but David could not have known when Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA at the time he wrote his essay so I don't think we should try to draw conclusions on his motives based on the confusion about the dates at that time.

David,

Without getting into another lengthy discussion about your extremely liberal interpretation and once again adding YOUR OWN WORDS above regarding Macdonald's role and pretending that Alan Wilson said it, I would point out that the phrase "planning the layout of Merion East" is your's and your's alone, and does NOT appear ANYWHERE in Alan Wilson's essay.  

Instead, Alan Wilson wrote, M&W "twice came to Haverford; first to go over the ground, and then to consider and advise about our plans.  They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the layout of the Merion East course were of the greatest help and value."  

I did ask Tom Paul about the omission of the phrase in question and he told me he had no idea.   He told me he recalls typing out the lengthy Alan Wilson essay back over a year ago but has no idea how he missed that phrase while typing.

Personally, I don't see why you read anything of importance into it?   If Macdonald provided advice as to the lay out of Merion East, wouldn't that mean he gave them construction pointers, given your definition of "lay out"?    ::) ;)

Seriously, isn't it a bit redundant?   Isn't the assumption that he gave them advice as to the Merion East golf course that they were designing and building at the time?

As I said at that time, if Tom did that purposefully, which I don't believe he did, that would be very regrettable and wrong.   He claims he made a mistake and I believe him.

On the other hand, I do have to ask you about two matters with your essay;

First, you told us recently that you knew all along that the November 15, 1910 Land Plan did not measure 117 acres as the accompanying paperwork indicated.    If you knew that, you also must have known that the "triangle" of land on the Land Plan did not measure 130 yards by 190 yards as Francis stated, but instead measures just under 100 yards by 327 yards, yet your essay pointed to the existence of that triangle of land as proof the the Francis Land Swap happened prior to November.

Didn't you think it was important to point out since you had measured that neither the Golf Course land on the plan was 117 acres (you tell us it was 122), nor was the triangle of land anywhere near what Francis told us he used?   You're generally a very exacting guy, David, and I really have a tough time understanding why you felt neither fact was relevant.

More importantly, you paraphrased and characterized a number of things from Hugh Wilson's 1916 "essay", and use it time and again to point out that Wilson seems to be talking mostly about "construction" and related items like agronomy.

Yet, not until today did I learn that Hugh Wilson's essay was in direct response to Piper & Oakley asking him to write a chapter on Agronomics as related to the creation of Merion for their book on the subject, and this is what he finally wrote, with the clear focus being on those matters related to soils and grasses.

However, not only don't you reproduce Wilson's relevant paragraphs in total in your essay (one would assume the defendant would fairly get to make his own statement), but you neither footnote the source or mention the very reason he wrote the essay in the first place.   Instead, the reader is left with the impression that Wilson is merely stating his general reminisces about what he did at Merion for a general audience.  

Did you not think it was important to cite your source, or at least the context of Wilson's remarks?


Similarly, from that same essay, you've contended over and over that Wilson tells us he wasn't involved with the new golf course at Merion until early 1911.   Yet, Wilson tells us NO such thing.   Instead, he tells us that he and the others were appointed to a formal committee charged with laying out and building the golf course in early 1911.   There is nothing at all exclusionary about his statement, nor does he preclude his involvement in any prior timeframe.   Yet, that isn't the way you've characterized what Wilson told us in the least.   Why would you represent what he wrote in his agronomic essay in 1916 regarding his appointment to the committee in early 1911 as proof positive that he had absolutely no involvement with the efforts of Merion to locate, route, and build a new golf course effort prior to that date?

I'm asking these in the form of questions, because I believe you should have the same consideration I've givenTom Paul in believing he had reasonable motives for the phrase he omitted in a long, long essay he typed by Alan Wilson.

Similarly, your essay is very long and detailed, which makes me wonder why these seemingly very important items were omitted from both the text as well as the footnotes.    I'm interested to hear why you believe none of this information was relevant enough to include in your essay, or if you simply didn't include it because of accidental omission I will take you at your word, as well.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 12:37:43 AM by MCirba »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2192 on: July 04, 2009, 11:03:55 PM »

....................................

Bryan,

Hugh Wilson wrote that in 1916, so at that time they did have at least 120 acres purchased, along with another 3 acres leased by summer of 1912, and I'm not sure these other 2 transactions make up the difference to 125 acres by 1916, but they might;

He may have written it in 1916, but he is clearly talking about the size of the tract in January, 1911, not in 1916.  He said:  "so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee ........... to construct a new course on the 125 acres which had been purchased."  You're being quite disingenuous on this point, trying to rationalize it to the land that they had in 1916.  Do you really think the sentence would have made any sense if it had be writte to reflect your rationalization:  "so early in 1911, the club appointed a committee ............... to construct a new course on the 125 acres which had been purchased in 1916."

10-22-1912
Charles Carver, Jr. sold .352 acres to Alfred B. Eaton who then conveyed the property to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association 78’x197’ along the south border of the Wheeler property in exchange for a 47’x323’ strip of ground west of the 2nd green

6-24-1914
Alexander Shand, Jr. conveyed 2915.04 sq. ft. to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association for $1.00 and other money

Also...

As regards the Hugh Wilson contention about 117 acres, I don't have the Piper & Oakley letter, but I know Tom MacWood, who does have those letters, has not contested Tom Paul's contention that Wilson told P&O in his Feb 1, 1911 letter that they had 117 acres and was sending along a topo map.    I'll see if I can't get an exact quote.

Also...

..............................


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2193 on: July 04, 2009, 11:14:21 PM »
Bryan,

I'm sorry...I don't get why you are calling me disengenuous?   I don't deserve that and have acted with you in good faith here.

I didn't even state my response as a statement to you, but as a question, asking if you thought they might have been part of it?   WTF??  ???

We know the course that opened in 1912 was 123 acres with 120 purchased and 3 leased.

I don't understand why you find his mention of 125 acres relevant at all?   I'm simply surmising and speculating that he was either rounding up (as you said the news article did from 138 to 150 the other day) or was thinking about the present acreage when he wrote this 5 years later.

What's the point?   Do you see something meaningful in that number?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 11:20:28 PM by MCirba »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2194 on: July 04, 2009, 11:45:49 PM »
Bryan,

I'm sorry...I don't get why you are calling me disengenuous?   I don't deserve that and have acted with you in good faith here.  A little sensitive tonight?  I retract disingenuous.  I was just surprised at your answer.

I didn't even state my response as a statement to you, but as a question, asking if you thought they might have been part of it?   WTF??  ???  I didn't read it as a question on your part, it seems like a statement.  If you meant it as a question, fine.

We know the course that opened in 1912 was 123 acres with 120 purchased and 3 leased.

I don't understand why you find his mention of 125 acres relevant at all?   I'm simply surmising and speculating that he was either rounding up (as you said the news article did from 138 to 150 the other day) or was thinking about the present acreage when he wrote this 5 years later.

What's the point?   Do you see something meaningful in that number?  What's meaningful to me is that it is yet another number, this time from Wilson himself, that doesn't fit with any other number.  I don't think he was rounding up.  Perhaps he misstated the acreage from 1916 as being from 1911.  But, it's getting frustrating that all the documents we have, even the ones from official Merion sources seem to be full of misstatements.   ???

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2195 on: July 05, 2009, 12:21:15 AM »
Bryan,

I agree that it's frustrating trying to nail this down but I honestly don't think they were ever considering 130 acres for the golf course; perhaps with their original thoughts of lawn tennis courts which I'm thinking would need to be close to the clubhouse for obvious reasons.

In any case, I do want to fully vet the 130 acre theory, because it's the closest possibility that they actually traded for the entire triangle and agree with you that Wilson was probably simply thinking about the present acreage and misstated it.

Sometime tomorrow I'll try to post a summary of what Tom Paul shared the other night, but bottom line is that Lloyd did not take title under his own name for either HDC or Merion despite what Cuyler wrote to Evans recommending how Lloyd should proceed.   Lloyd simply bought all the possible land under his own name that the Merion course might need in December 1911, knowing that his syndicate controlled all of the rest of the HDC land (which he'd then sell the "unused" portion back to after the course routing was done) under Corporate ownership, and knowing that Merion would get what they needed for their course, and that he could move the boundaries between golf and real estate as necessary to accomplish that.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2196 on: July 05, 2009, 04:09:06 AM »
Jeff Brauer,

Despite Mike's absurd misrepresentation about what I could not have known, I knew that the NGLA meeting happened in early 1911, after Wilson was appointed but before the construction began.  All Wayne could possibly claim to clear up is the exact date, if he produced documents establishing this.

_________________________
Mike Cirba.

Your hackneyed attempts to malign my character and integrity are pathetic and disgraceful.    And that you dare compare my treatment of the source material to TEPaul's is yet another indication that you will say anything at all if you think it will help your argument, no matter how absurd.

You wrote that you never knew the Wilson article came from the Piper/Oakley Book?  Because I never told you?  And I mislead the reader by pretending that the Wilson article wasn't about agronomy?  

From my Essay, emphasis added:

"About four years after Merion opened, Hugh Wilson authored an account of the origins of the courses at Merion which was published in the last chapter (”Personal Experiences”) of Charles Piper and Russell Oakley’s seminal 1916 work on golf course agronomy, Turf for Golf Courses. While Wilson’s essay mostly focused on the early agronomy issues at Merion’s two new courses, he began the piece by tracing the origins of Merion’s East course, and was most effusive in his praise of Macdonald and Whigham and the help they had provided during the NGLA meeting.

Don't you think it is about time you read my essay?
______________________

And are we really supposed to believe that TEPaul typed out the accurate version of the Wilson letter, then DELETED THE POST IN WHICH THE ACCURATE VERSION WAS TRANSCRIBED , then RETYPED IT incorrectly?   And the second time he just happened to accidentally leave about the part about how what they were doing at NGLA was DISCUSSING THE LAY OUT OF MERION EAST?

Really?  That you believe it is a given.  That anyone else would is a stretch.
___________________

Mike,   Gouging my own eyes out with a fork would be more productive and enjoyable than discussing this with you further.  

Just stop misrepresenting me and my ideas.  You've got enough to worry about with your own ideas.  
« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 04:16:34 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2197 on: July 05, 2009, 07:12:43 AM »
Mike -- You know, I once wrote a covering letter/resume that was a lot like the one Mr. Barker wrote, full of details and credentials and attempts at making a good impression. Of course, I never got an interview, let alone the job -- I was not the person they were lookng for; I daresay, I wasn't even the "type" of person they were looking for. Which brings me again to the same point I've been making recently (and one that only Patrick picked up on, if only to disagree with): Why would CBM be called in (later) if anyone had any faith in or use for an (earlier) Barker routing? And, if such a preliminary routing even existed, why would CBM provide Merion with the outline for that 6,000 yard course of his, a per-hole set of yardages that I think (it's safe to say) was a boiler-plate golf course that makes no mention of/reference to any of the principles of great golf course architecture as manifest in the classic holes of British links golf that CBM was aggressively promoting at that time?  And then, if any bit of that bolier-plate was being considered at all, why the intense period of work for the Wilson committee, and the two days of learning (and learned discussion) at NGLA, and then the creation of 5 different plans (I presume, five routings) for the course that was clearly the work of the committee? As I've suggested, it seems to me that everything else (everything previous) is cancelled out by the selection -- as detailed in the Merion minutes -- of a final plan from amongst those 5 created by the comittee, a selection CBM helped them make.  But as I say - I've made this same point 3 or 4 times now, and no one seems to think it's worth commenting on, so maybe I'm missing or misunderstanding something. That's not a plea for reassurance; I'm just wondering if the argument I'm making is that far off base (or that obvious).

Peter      

Peter,

I totally agree with your analysis, and I'm sure we're not alone. From what I've seen of the hard evidence ie minutes, Wilson essay etc, and from taking them in their proper context its a fairly straightforward conclusion to come to. The idea that MacDonald/Whigam, or indeed Barker, had a direct hand in designing Merion certainly is intriguing but IMHO all that Davids essay and subsequent posts have done is raise some dust but no real evidence that they were involved in doing the design of Merion (if indeed that is what he is now suggesting).

Also despite the fine efforts of Bryan, Jeff and Mike, I have to question exactly what establishing the land acquisition timeline will do in determining who did what in terms of the design.

Niall   

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2198 on: July 05, 2009, 08:23:16 AM »
Mike Cirba.

Your hackneyed attempts to malign my character and integrity are pathetic and disgraceful.    And that you dare compare my treatment of the source material to TEPaul's is yet another indication that you will say anything at all if you think it will help your argument, no matter how absurd.

You wrote that you never knew the Wilson article came from the Piper/Oakley Book?  Because I never told you?  And I mislead the reader by pretending that the Wilson article wasn't about agronomy?  

From my Essay, emphasis added:

"About four years after Merion opened, Hugh Wilson authored an account of the origins of the courses at Merion which was published in the last chapter (”Personal Experiences”) of Charles Piper and Russell Oakley’s seminal 1916 work on golf course agronomy, Turf for Golf Courses. While Wilson’s essay mostly focused on the early agronomy issues at Merion’s two new courses, he began the piece by tracing the origins of Merion’s East course, and was most effusive in his praise of Macdonald and Whigham and the help they had provided during the NGLA meeting.

Don't you think it is about time you read my essay?

David,

If I missed that attribution then I apologize.   Your essay posted on this site seems to have been updated; would that be a correct assessment?  If so, just one time since initial publication, or multiple times?

The question of why Wilson's paragraphs weren't copied for the reader's perusal and understanding still stands however.  Like you're doing with Alan Wilson above, where you tell us that Alan Wilson said that "Macdonald and Whigham were "PLANNING THE LAYOUT OF MERION EAST", here again you insist in your essay that Hugh Wilson's words aren't sufficient but instead need your edit, your characterization, your representation, and your interpretation.  

Rather than risking doing the exact same, thing, let me instead just simply copy your own words from your essay;

Wilson started off the essay by briefly touching on Merion’s need for a new course, the acquisition of the Ardmore Avenue land, and the subsequent creation of the Construction Committee. As was discussed above, he then described the Committee’s qualifications, or lack thereof, at the time they traveled to NGLA, and noted that Macdonald and Whigham got them started on the right foot.

[T]he experience of each 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 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 kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

Note that Wilson did not even bother to mention the Committee’s lack of experience designing courses, but instead only described their lack of qualification for course construction and green keeping. It was not that he was an expert in design. Rather, his concern was only with building the course and growing grass on it.

Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.” In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design. To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” This was precisely how Wilson used the phrase. “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.’ The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan, and Macdonald and Whigham gave them a good start in understanding how to do so.

Wilson’s entire discussion of his role focuses not on the planning, but on the building.


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 correct principles of the holes that form 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.

Hugh Wilson and his Committee were learning how to build the golf holes at Merion. The previous summer, MacDonald and Whigham had helped Merion’s site committee choose a proper site for the golf course, even sending Merion their ideas on “what could be done with the property.” Now Macdonald and Whigham were teaching the Construction Committee “what [they] should try to accomplish with [their] natural conditions.” They were teaching the Committee how to build the holes Macdonald and Whigham had envisioned on their previous visit....

Tellingly, Hugh Wilson’s 1916 write-up completely omitted any discussion of how and why the routing was planned as it was. He did not address how the holes were fit together or why certain natural features were used as they were. He did not mention or describe the concept or design of a single golf hole. Rather, Wilson transitioned directly from praising Macdonald and Whigham to discussing the construction of the golf course.




I'd also ask yet again why;

1) If you knew when you wrote your essay that the land for the golf course measured 122 acres, not 117 as represented in the accompanying letters with the November 1910 Land Plan why did you choose to not mention that?  Instead, you wrote;

But the “Plan Showing Proposed Golf Course” is a few acres short. The Site Committee had sought “nearly 120 acres,” not 117 acres. The Plan does not include one small tract – a little less than three acres – that the Site Committee needed for the course. Like the “Dallas Estate,” this last small parcel was not under the control of Haverford Development Company at the time site committee recommended its purchase. Unlike the “Dallas Estate,” the Merion may have been unable to secure this parcel prior to the date Merion secured the rest of the land.


2) If you knew when you wrote your essay that the triangle of land on that November 1910 Land Plan didn't measure 130x190 as Francis had stated, but instead measured 100X327, why did you choose to not mention that, especially as you used it to offer the only physicial proof in your essay that the Francis Swap had to have happened prior to then.   Instead, after posting a picture of the Land Plan, you wrote;

As quoted by Tolhurst, Francis wrote that Merion gave up “land west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout;” land which was later “covered by fine homes along Golf House Road.” In exchange, Merion received a small section of “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long – the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.” No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description. More importantly, the land was acquired while Merion was putting the finishing touches on the routing plan for the course. So the date of the supposed “swap” will allow us to determine when the final touches were being put on the initial routing plan.

Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan. Merion optioned and purchased the land for the 15th green and 16th tee as part of their option and purchase of the bulk of the golf course property.  Property records confirm this.[16] The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized and the Construction Committee appointed. The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.

So, by mid-November 1910, the layout had already been planned. I have found no evidence that Hugh Wilson had been at all involved in the purchase or the planning at this early date. To the contrary, as will be discussed below, the historical record indicates that Wilson became involved in early 1911, after the purchase was finalized.



Finally, I'd simply ask, how do you interpret Hugh WIlson's statement that he and the others were appointed to a committee in early 1911 as him saying that he wasn't involved prior?   Why do you think Merion would appoint someone who according to your essay had no involvement or knowledge prior and put him in charge of the Committee, OVER Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, and Toulmin?

Isn't that where the real "technical" work of golf course architecture takes place?   You or I could take a map and draw a routing on it in a few hours, much like Barker, for better or worse.

Isn't the real question, why did they put a man who was an admitted novice in Construction and Agronomy over a team of men who were admitted novices in Construction and Agronomy?   Isn't that where the real leap of faith occurred??

Hundreds of club members laid out their own courses prior to 1910 in the United States David, and you know that.   You also know that Dr. Toulmin was part of a three-man committee who laid out the course at Belmont Country Club some years prior.

Why do you think they put Hugh Wilson in charge of the committee if he supposedly had no prior involvement.   Just because you've found no evidence that he was involved prior to then, do you really believe that's reason to say the historical record indicates the Wilson had involvement prior to 1911 given his immediate appointment as Chairman immediately after the land purchase by Lloyd?



« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 09:14:12 AM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline, or Jeff Brauer Unties The Gordian Knot!
« Reply #2199 on: July 05, 2009, 09:51:09 AM »
I had a conversation with Tom Paul on Friday and wish I had written down some notes because in trying to reconstruct it early on a Sunday morning I'm struggling a bit.   Still, I'll do my best.

Tom called me because he noted that I was asking what "securing" land meant back then, as in Merion "secured" 117 acres in November 1910 as we agreed above.

According to Tom, the securing of land was simply an "agreement in principle".

At Merion, this agreement in principle was based on a formal offer sent to Merion in early November 1911 from Mr. Nicholson of the Haverford Development Company, offering 117 acres at a fixed price.

The offer letter does not make clear whether there are a specified 117 acres previously agreed upon, or whether it is an offer for 117 acres generally.   (There is no mention of 130 acres, or an option of another 13 acres.)   Nicholson stated that the offer was good until early December, evidently trying to move things along.

Given subsequent events, we now know quite certainly tht the specific location of the 117 acres was NOT finalized, except in those cases of land boundaries already well established on the historic boundary lines of the two properties in question.  

I should not one other very important point Tom raised.   The Nicholoson letter, and the subsequent Cuyler letter, were not separate letters in and of themselves, but were instead full transcripts of those letters entered verbatim into the Merion Cricket Club Minutes, presumably by the club secretary Edward Sayres.

As a result of Nicholson's offer, club solicitor Cuyler wrote a letter to President Evans recommending a number of things, the most important being 1) The Merion Cricket Club form a separate formal Corporation "Merion Cricket Club Golf Association" to hold title after purchase, and 2) The H.G. Lloyd take title to the land in question as there was no definite course at that time so that he could accommodate the easy shifting of boundary lines as needed for golf.  It should be noted that the term "definite" has strict legal definition particularly as relating to real estate law, meaning "having clearly defined, distinct, explicit limits".

Cuyler also asked President Evans to notify him when that future boundary line between golf and real estate was finally established.

Tom Paul also states that he's unclear and may have misread previously when he stated that it was advised that Lloyd take title either for HDC or for Merion, and tells me the legalistic language in that section is very confusing.   In any case, he thinks that's largely meaningless and he suggests we should instead just look at what we know actually transpired shortly afterwards.

Evans responded to Nicholson that the club was indeed interested, but needed some more time to setup a new corporation, etc., which they did.

Later in December, as we know, Lloyd did not just take the title for 117 acres into his personal possession, but instead took the entire 140 acres of the Johnson Farm as well as the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate.

Again, this is simply MORE evidence that the boundary between real estate and golf was not determined at this time, or in the legal words of Cuyler, it was not "definite" where the golf course would be.  Only later, on April 19th 1911 after Merion's Board approved one of the golf course plans that the Committee had worked on through April 6th, 1911, was that land plan finalized.  At that meeting, the Merion Board also approved a swap of land alread purchased for land adjoining and also approved purchase of an additional 3 acres for $7500.

In July, Lloyd sold the NOW 120 acres to a middleman, a Mr. Rothman, who turned around and sold it to Merion Cricket Club Golf Assn., the newly formed Corporation, who rented use of the course to Merion Cricket Club for $1 a year.


Finally, I pointed out earlier that one of the news articles talked about lawn tennis courts and skating rink at the new site.

In that regard, I'd put forward this January 1911 Dues Increase letter from Secretary Edward Sayres to the membership, in which he not only increases assessments on those golfing members of the Cricket Club, but also on those who will be using the Lawn Tennis courts and the Skating facilities at the new course, which experts are presently at work preparing plans for as of that date.

While we know that later ice skating did take place by flooding the quarry, we can only speculate that the Lawn Tennis courts would have taken a number of acres, and would have almost certainly been located very near the clubhouse facilities.

Is there anyone who still believes that this was all locked down, course routed, and everything in place by November, 1910?


« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 10:08:52 AM by MCirba »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back