Merion's Early Timeline

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
In Wilson's first letter to Piper (2/1/1911) he states Macdonald suggested he contact Piper. In later letters Wilson mentions other communications with CBM. Doesn't that suggest the two men were in communication for several months (several weeks before the overnight stay and several weeks after the one day visit)?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
In Wilson's first letter to Piper (2/1/1911) he states Macdonald suggested he contact Piper. In later letters Wilson mentions other communications with CBM. Doesn't that suggest the two men were in communication for several months (several weeks before the overnight stay and several weeks after the one day visit)?

Tom,

No evidence of that has been found either at Merion or from what I know of George Bahto's research, on the Macdonald side as well.

Couldn't Macdonald have mentioned P&O during his one day visit in June 1910?  

Bryan,

Interesting above as I think more about it.

Did you note in that 1913 article I posted above where Hugh Wilson's committee folks (Clarence Geist actually) looking at land for the public course in Philly  basically said they weren't going to do a layout or planning for the course until the city actually approved the land in question, as it would be a waste of time (implied).

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Sorry for the multiple posts but that article does throw a different light on the 13 acre option and related 130 acres theory, I think.

It also begs the question of why Merion would be considering land way up there if the original purchase was going to truncate at the south end of the Haverford College boundary?

What do you think?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Obviously Bahto and Merion were not privy to the P&O letters. I was thinking it would be more likely wilson contacted CBM after the committee was formed, but if you insist on June 1910, that would suggest even longer period of communication, and what do you make of their communications after April?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike/Bryan/Jeff
For months TEP told us the date of the Cuyler letter was Dec. 21, 1910, now it is dated Nov.27, 1910. Either way, it doesn't much matter to me, but why would their be confision about the date on the letter? Is there an explanation?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

There is no doubt that Wilson and Macdonald had some correspondence, but it's difficult to determine the extent of it.

I think the wording would suggest it was periodic, as opposed to frequent, especially as I read Wilson being persistent in seeking time-sensitive info from P+O and Macdonald seeming to mostly refer Merion elsewhere for answers.

[JESII]

Tom M,

Macdonald suggested, in his June 1910 letter, that they contact the Washington guys. There is no reason CBM and Merion had to communicate between his original letter and their visit in March, other than to schedule the visit.




Mike,

The original 117 acres was going to truncate at the south end of Haverford College and the tennis courts were going to fill the top 10 acres...still my theory and I'm sticking to it...it's looking better all the time.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
The June letter does not mention anyone in Washington by name. In his 2/1 letter Wilson said Macdonald suggested he contact Piper specifically. (In his book Bahto said Piper worked closely with CBM at NGLA). The specific mention of Piper suggests to me Wilson and CBM were in contact prior 2/1. What do you think?

Do you know what the explantion is for the date the Cuyler letter changing? Are there two letters?

[JESII]

I think CBM was clearly implying Piper and Oakley in June 1910.

I also think it is likely that CBM and the Merion Committee traded some correspondance throughout...but the Feb 1 letter does not prove it...CBM suggested it in June 1910 with his words about cutting a sod and sending it to Washington.

Re: the Culyer letter(s), I have missed the significance of the dates, please fill me in.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I see Macdonald as a no-nonsense guy and let's admit it, Hugh Wilson seems to have been a bit of a pain in the rump in terms of single-minded determination to ask questions and get info.

I'm thinking he may have fired off a few letters to Macdonald, who finally just replied, "Why don't you guys get your tails up to NGLA and spend the day and I'll show you what I've been doing rather than sitting here typing incessantly."   Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me at all, speculative though it may be.

My understanding is that there was more than one Cuyler letter transcribed.   They don't talk about an existing golf course at all, but simply state as of late December that the boundaries for the golf course had not been located.   Reading that as saying a golf course was already in existence is not accurate, as is shown by the subsequent news articles talking about options on 13 acres, 130 possible acres, and this latest one suggesting land for the golf course as far north as Catherwood.

If we ever want to get to an accurate understanding of what transpired we need to accept that it all started with Lloyd's December purchase in December 1911 and that there was no pre-routed golf course prior to then.

Jim,

The problem with what you're suggesting is that they talked about a 13 acre option.

If you truncate the land below Haverford College you have 108.5 acres of Johnson Farm plus 21 acres of Dallas Estate, plus the 13 acres up top which doesn't add up in any scenario.

The point I was trying to bring to you and Bryan last week is to get to 117 acres you not only have to truncate the original Johnson Farm at Haverford, but you have to also draw a second artificial, arbitrary boundary line east of the western boundary of Johnson Farm, which would further impinge the golf course.

Given that as early as June 1910 M&W had told them that much could be done with the quarry as a hazard, I find it inconceivable that they wouldn't have tried to buy as much land around that area as possible from the get-go.

Why buy only 65 yards north of it, and then also create another artificial boundary impinging it width-wise in that area as well?

[Tom MacWood]

I would agree CBM letter clearly implies the Department of Agriculture. I don't think you can say it clealy implies P&O. I'm not sure how many people were employed by the Department, but based on Wilson's correspendence with different employees there were at least half a dozen, probably many more. I don't believe Piper and Oakley were house hold names in 1910. Were they well known?

The significance of the date of the Cuyler letter remains to be seen. At the time TEP introduced it he said the date was significant because in his opinion it indicated the Francis land swap occured later than David suggested in his essay. For weeks TEP said the letter was dated Dec 21, 1910. Now the letter is dated Nov. 27, 1910. Which really has no bearing on TEP original claim regarding the swap, but may effect other scenarios.

My question has less to do with the date, and more to do with why or how there could be confusion about a date on a letter. Any ideas?

[Mike_Cirba]

I would agree CBM letter clearly implies the Department of Agriculture. I don't think you can say it clealy implies P&O. I'm not sure how many people were employed by the Department, but based on Wilson's correspendence with different employees there were at least half a dozen, probably many more. I don't believe Piper and Oakley were house hold names in 1910. Were they well known?

The significance of the date of the Cuyler letter remains to be seen. At the time TEP introduced it he said the date was significant because in his opinion it indicated the Francis land swap occured later than David suggested in his essay. For weeks TEP said the letter was dated Dec 21, 1910. Now the letter is dated Nov. 27, 1910. Which really has no bearing on TEP original claim regarding the swap.

My question has less to do with the date, and more to do with why or how there could be confusion about a date on a letter. Any ideas?

Tom,

Please see my note above.

Cuyler advised Evans that Lloyd take title so that the boundaries could be moved as necessary.

By late December, there were still no boundaries located for the golf course.  It wasn't a "tweak" as David suggests.   The routing work hadn't begun, but would right after the holidays with the formation of the committee of what we now also know were the very best golfers in the club, sans relative newcomer Howard Perrin who may have begged off for any number of reasons..

I'm not sure how many golfers were in the club as of 1910, but we know that number was 400 by winter 1912.

Do you think it's pure coincidence that the 5 of the Top 6 golfers out of say 300, were named to the committee?

[JESII]

By late December, there were still no boundaries located for the golf course.  It wasn't a "tweak" as David suggests.   The routing work hadn't begun, but would right after the holidays with the formation of the committee of what we now also know were the very best golfers in the club, sans Howard Perrin who may have begged off for any number of reasons..

You can't say this is a fact. The words were "no DEFINITE" boundary.

You can take Tom's interpretation of "definite" to mean any at all, but I'll take it to mean final and binding.

[Tom MacWood]

Cuyler's referred to a golf course in November 1910? What did he say?

Tom,

What is referred to as the "Cuyler letter" where he writes to President Evans recommending that HG Lloyd take title of the HDC Land to be able to easily shift boundaries since there was no definite course (Lloyd would subsequently buy the entire 161 acres of 140 Johnson Farm and 21 Dallas Estate)  appeared in the December MCC Minutes, transcribed into the record.

It is dated November 27, 1910.

I mentioned this the other day.

Mike
A couple of days ago you indicated there was only one letter, and it was addressed to Evans. Bryan's timeline says the November letter is addressed to Lloyd. We've seen the Barker letter transcribed into the minutes and its date is clearly written. Can you unravel the confusion?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Does the other evidence from that same time period...the news articles talking about a 13 acres option, the 130 acres for the golf course, the plan for Lawn Tennis and skating, the notes that Wilson's Committee had done many plans which still weren't finalized as of the second week in March 1911, followed by "five different plans" between then and April 6th suggest that anything was remotely finalized prior to December?

Tom,

I'm not sure I can unravel the confusion, but I can tell you that there was more than one letter from Cuyler, my understanding is that they were all addressed to Evans, they are transcribed into the minutes, and the one in December mentions that the boundary for the golf course has not been located.  


I'd also ask you both if you don't see the Francis Swap as the final determining step to finalize the routing as relayed in what Francis told us?   He says they had located the first 13 holes and were simply struggling with the final five.   

Knowing what you both know in terms of overall evidence to date, would you say that his Swap was more likely before or after December 1911?

[JESII]

 
“Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course.”
 
“The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue – but the last five holes were another question. “

“I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea.  Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him.  The idea was this:  We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with ANY golf layout (caps emphasis mine).  Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?”  

Mike,

The first 13 may have been routed first, but Francis does not say that here...all he says here is that they were easier to get in.

The word splicing of many different courses and five plans etc...is challenging and I'm really not interested other than to say I doubt they were reconfiguring each and every hole during those efforts.

What would be the least amount of alteration to a golf course plan to mandate it being considered a new one?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I would think that today a revision could be any number of things, but let's not forget that when Merion was opened 18 months later there were very few bunkers located, and the "mental hazards" had been left to later, after Wilson's trip, and after seeing how the course played.

In other words, not much in the way of mid-bodies of holes had been pre-planned or internal strategies of holes determined.

The most important task that was being done at that time was simply to locate the 18 tees, fairways, and greens, knowing full well that they intended this as a work in progress, as was told to us clearly by Tillinghast, Findlay, and "Far and Sure" in their opening day accounts.

So, given that, I would think that any "new plan" had to be a deviation in the routing and placement of the 18 rough holes.

As far as Francis, he told us that "The land was shaped like a capital "L", and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion - with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue, but the last five holes were another question."

Whether that was simply located on a map or not, speaking about it in 1950 he sure seems to indicate to me that this is where the first 13 holes went and that they had been already routed and finalized.

[JESII]

I think you are over-reading Francis' words...he says nothing about anything being completed.

A while ago you asked for a guess at a routing without the triangle...now you're saying they had many more than 5 (many courses and then 5 new ones...) for the last 5 holes with the land including the triangle...? Highly skeptical of that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Bryan,

Good question.   What's the date of the article again?  It was your article.  Didn't you date it January 7, 1911?

If nothing else, I think it goes to the point where there was NO determined boundary for the golf course as of December 1911, which is fact, not supposition.   I don't follow how you reach this conclusion.  I don't have any issue with your and Jeff's idea of no definite boundary, but that there was a working boundary.

Bryan,

Interesting above as I think more about it.

Did you note in that 1913 article I posted above where Hugh Wilson's committee folks (Clarence Geist actually) looking at land for the public course in Philly  basically said they weren't going to do a layout or planning for the course until the city actually approved the land in question, as it would be a waste of time (implied).  I read the article, but don't see the parrallels on this point.  In that case, there were two truly arms-length entities involved - the city being one.  In the Merion case the two parties were anything but arms-length.  In fact  Lloyd had money on both sides.  I doubt there were any inhibitions about designing a course there or even blasting the top off the quarry before MCC legally owned it.

Bryan,

Sorry for the multiple posts but that article does throw a different light on the 13 acre option and related 130 acres theory, I think.

It also begs the question of why Merion would be considering land way up there if the original purchase was going to truncate at the south end of the Haverford College boundary?

What do you think?     

I am still trying to figure it out.  I see Jim has a theory.  Are you accepting that this item, in this news story, is fact and correct?  No use speculating if you're going to later deny that the statement represents a fact.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom M,

Macdonald suggested, in his June 1910 letter, that they contact the Washington guys. There is no reason CBM and Merion had to communicate between his original letter and their visit in March, other than to schedule the visit.




Mike,

The original 117 acres was going to truncate at the south end of Haverford College and the tennis courts were going to fill the top 10 acres...still my theory and I'm sticking to it...it's looking better all the time.

Jim,

The upper part of the Johnson Farm was 10.5 acres.  The little polygon north of College between the Catherwood Estate and Turnbridge Road looks to be about 2.5 acres, making the total north of the Haverford College property line 13 acres.  Interesting.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I may have missed it in the multitude of posts on this thread or others on this topic, but where did you find the P&O letters?  I guess the records there, wherever there is, were incomplete since you don't seem to have the critical contour map that was sent under separate cover at the beginning of February, 1911.  Have you searched at the Dep't of Agriculture?  It sure would be nice to find at least one map with a plan on it, or just one plan.  Given the fact that no plan on paper has ever been found makes me wonder whether there ever was one (other than Barker's).  Is it possible that they (whoever they are) designed the course via stakes in the ground?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

It's a fact that a newspaper mentioned a 13 acre option and a fact that another mentioned 130 acres total for the golf course.   Whether those details were factual, speculative, or accurate we don't know, but we do know that Lloyd went ahead and just bought the whole 161 acres.  

As far as differing entities in my "public golf course" example, I have a bit of a different take on that.   Jim feels that it's likely that Merion would have locked down a routing before buying any land, similar to Daivd's theory in that respect.   I believe that would normally be true, but this wasn't a normal circumstance.

Because Lloyd was on both sides of this transaction, they knew they had latitude once the land was eventually acquired by HDC, and then purchased by Lloyd (the fact that articles indicate that getting the land for HDC was more problematic than we originally knew makes it more reasonable that the wouldn't have spent time out there planning prior) I believe they were more concerned simply that they had "enough" land for the golf course, and I think all of these various evidences are indicative of that.

They knew generally where they wanted the golf course and were of course bound by the boundaries of the land in question, but the area between HDC real estate and golf course was indetermined and not really a big issue once Lloyd just grabbed up 161 acres, although I agree with you that there was some "working boundary" establshed at that time of what constituted 117 (or 122 acres as on the November Land Plan) acres because otherwise the Francis Swap would make no sense at all.

They knew they wanted access to the railroad, the existing clubhouse structure, the quarry, the creek, public roadways, and they knew they wanted to course to be self-contained.    Other than that, I see no evidence that they did anything in terms of routing,etc. before acquiring the land, which we now also know was a more complicated process than originally believed.  

***EDIT*** - Bryan, we know that there was a paper routing plan because the April 19th, 1911 minutes indicate that the final, recommended plan for the golf course is attached.  We also know that Mr. Francis told us he spent a lot of time drawing.


At the risk of getting castigated again for simply being a mouthpiece for Tom Paul, he sent me the following this morning, which I've decided to post for him.   Hopefully, it will clear up some remaining questions;


"Mike/Bryan/Jeff
For months TEP told us the date of the Cuyler letter was Dec. 21, 1910, now it is dated Nov.27, 1910. Either way, it doesn't much matter to me, but why would their be confision about the date on the letter? Is there an explanation?"
 
 
Mike:
 
You may tell Tom MacWood for me that there is an explanation, in my opinion, for the confusion. That explanation is the capacity of all of you who are discussing this minutiae to get confused by your minutiae discussions (as was once mentioned on that thread the simplest most commonsensical answer FROM MCC's OWN RECORDS (and not a bunch of indirect newspaper articles) probably is the answer). As far as I know there was no Cuyler's Nov. 27, 1910 letter and I never said there was. There were two Cuyler's letters. One that was made part of the Nov. 23 1910 MCC board meeting minutes explaining how MCCGA Corp should be set up and registered and the second one of Dec. 21, 1910 amending Cuyler's recommendation in his first letter that title to the land should be taken into the name of an individual of their selection and that it should be taken into Lloyd's name so that he could move boundaries subsequently; clearly Cuyler's was not asking for Evans' or the MCC board's permission on this since Lloyd had already done this two days before Cuyler's letter to Evans (Cuyler's said in his 12/21/1910 letter to Evans that Lloyd asked him to inform Evans). That pretty much indicates how centrally Lloyd figured in all of this don't you think?
 
Also one of the "terms" of the HDC offer of 117 acres for $85,000 was that settlement (purchase) should be made on or about Dec. 10, 1910. Cuyler's letter of Dec. 21, 1910 would say that since no cash was needed (no money to purchase the land) for some months there would be no need to float the mortgage bond offering immediately. Why was the purchase date put off for approximately seven months? Good question and in my opinion, one good reason was between the initial offer and Dec. 1910 Lloyd had also recapitalized HDC from $100,000 to $300,000; the other good reason was as Cuyler's would say in the Dec 21, 1910 letter was that no golf course had been definitely located in Dec. 1910 and that was obviously because Wilson and Committee had not yet begun to route and design a golf course on that land at that point (that becomes obvious when one considers the Wilson Committee report to the board meeting of 4/19/1910 explaining the numerous layouts and plans the Wilson Committee did after they were appointed to do that in the four or so months BEFORE a plan was submitted to the board for approval (4/19/1910) and BEFORE anything was BUILT on that land).
 
These are just my opinions of what all the material I have says and means. If anyone on Golfclubatlas does not agree with my opinions, that is just fine by me and it's just fine by Merion too. If anyone on Golfclubatlas wants the material I have you might suggest to them to call Merion or MCC and first establish a relationship with those two clubs as I have. If they can do that first then perhaps those clubs may consider letting them analyze their records. I feel I have no responsibility to someone like David Moriarty because he decided to write an article and put it on Golfclubatlas about what he thinks happened during this time and because that article was roundly criticized and disagreed with mainly because he wrote it without access to a good deal of very important MCC records and source material. I firmly believe he never should have attempted to write an article on the history of Merion without that material or without first establishing a relationship with Merion GC and MCC. I do realize that when he wrote that article neither he nor we even realized that some really important source material resided at MCC where it apparently had not been seen or considered in close to a century. It was not found by David Moriarty, it was found by members of Merion and MCC. Had Moriarty established a relationship with MCC as those members of Merion and their friends did perhaps then he could have had and would have had that important material that was found by others. But he chose not to do it that way and both he and his essay greatly suffered for that lack of important source material. And because both he and his article were criticized he now seems to think he has some right to that material or that we have a responsibility to give it to him. As I have stated many times before I completely disagree on that and it is my sense that Merion and MCC does as well! Of course he can have his own personal opinions on all of this but he at least should realize and appreciate that his opinions on any of this are not necessarily shared by others and perhaps they never will be.
 
The real point of this message is that I firmly believe if anyone wants to write an informed and informative history on a golf club and its architecture they should first establish a relationship with the club so that ALL the information pertinent to the subject could be analyzed. Failing that I firmly believe an article such as Moriarty wrote should not even be attempted as it could only be highly speculative, uninformed and uninformative, misleading and probably revisionistic as this "Missing Faces of Merion" is and as its author's defense of it has been for over a year now. I agree with Jeff Brauer when he mentioned that he feels a couple of people on that website entered into this Wilson/Macdonald subject on Merion with the attitude that the club and its historians and friends had been involved in some conspiracy to alter the truth of what happened with the architecture of Merion and who did it. It is important to know that is not the case and never has been.
 
 
If anyone is interested in my opinion on these things feel free to email me and I will at least consider whatever you say or ask. My email can be found along with my name (on posts or my registration or whatever). At this time I prefer it this way rather than posting on that site on this subject myself which seems to inevitably devolve into needless and unproductive arguments and insults.
 
Thanks,
 
TEPaul
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

The upper part of the Johnson Farm was 10.5 acres.  The little polygon north of College between the Catherwood Estate and Turnbridge Road looks to be about 2.5 acres, making the total north of the Haverford College property line 13 acres.  Interesting.

For a moment, let's assume that this was the 13 acres in question.   The 13 acres option report followed the securing of 117 acres which happened in early November 1910 or the purchase by Lloyd of 161 acres in December 1910, or both, as it was reported in January 1911.  

I guess the obvious question is how the November 15th, 1910 Land Plan could show some a portion of that triangle land above Haverford College as part of the golf course yet at the same time also be part of a 13 acre "future option"?

All,

Does anyone believe it was simply coincidence that 5 of the 6 top golfers (by handicap) at Merion of roughly 300 golf members at that time were named to the Merion "Construction Committee" in January 1910?

Does anyone believe it was because of their prior knowledge of construction and agronomy?

If we're trying to understand why Hugh Wilson was picked in the first place, hasn't the answer been staring at us in the face all along?


Tillinghast reported that over 800 golfers in the Philadelphia District had handicaps of 18 or better (the max they would handicap), and listed the top players;

Tillinghast stated;

"The Golf Association of Philadelphia's handicap list has just been completed, and although the committee only rated players to the limit of eighteen strokes, over eight hundred names appear..."

"In rating the first twenty or thirty players the performances of last year were considered to a great extent, and those players who have been rather inactive have only to exhibit a return of form to receive in the fall revision of the list that recognition which the excellence of their play warrants."

"Mr. H. B. McFarland, of Huntingdon Valley, has been placed alone at 4 strokes. His work in the Patterson Cup contest and his win of the Pennnsylvania State championship entitled him to this honor. The handicaps from 4 to 10 follow:"

Handicap 4: McFarland, H. B.

Handicap 5: Carr, Simon; Hanson, R.
E.; Perrin, H. W.; Pfeil, Walter; Reynolds,
W. H.; Satterthwaite, E.; Stull, C.
S.; Smith, W. P.; Tillinghast, A. W.;
West, W. T.

Handicap 6: Buxton, C. B.; Crump, G.
A.; Edwards, J. P.; Griscom, R. E.; Horstman,
F. O.; Mather, J. S.; Service, E. A.;
Smith, A. H.; Smith, H. P.; Thompson,
W. L.; Tyson, W. A.; Wilson, H. I.

Handicap 7: Alcorn, J. S.; Bartholomew,
B.; Francis, R. S.; Harrison, W. F.; Harvey,
R. W.; Hill, F. P.; James, R. C;
McCurdy, J. A.; Mott, Richard; Scott, G.;
Wendell, Herman; Williams, A. C. ;
Wright, M. R.; Heyburn, H. B.; Cooke,
Geo. J.

Handicap 8: Bohlen, F. H.; Brown, Jr.,
G. B.; Brumbaugh, S. L.: Castner. P. A.;
Clark, 3d, E. W.; Colahan, 3d, J. B.; Farnum,
C. S.; Francine, H. H.; Humphreys,
E. B.; Jones, Jr., W. S.; Kemble, F. W.;
Klauder, G. C.; Lewis, Ben.; Lineaweaver,
C. P.; Mackie, F. M.; Major, H. T.;
Mitchell, E. E.; Neiffer, M. K.; Race, B.
O.; Reyburn, W. S.; Rhodes, H. W. ;
Schofr, C. H.; Smedley, Walter; Starr, C.
S.; Taylor, F. W.; Toulmin, Harry; Watson,
J. W.; Weir, Robt.; Wendell, H. F.;
Worthington, H. R.

Handicap 9: Baldwin, R. J.; Blair, K. E.;
Collins, Abbott; Comfort, E. T.; Cutler,
G. L.; Deacon, H. P.; Dixon, C. G.; Downing,
W. C.; Dunlap, Jr., Jas.; George, W.
H.; King, J. B.; Kirchner, H. P.; Kribbs,
Jr., H. G.; Large, R. M.; Lineaweaver, J.
I.; Lloyd, H. G.; Mackey, H. A.; McNeely,
R. P.; Nalle, J.; Sherman, F. S.; Smedley,
H. W.; Steel, R. W.; Webster, Jr., C. B.;
Willoughby, Jr., H. L.; Wilson, W. W.

Handicap 10: Ashby, A. H.; Atherton, G.
E.; Bergner, G. W.; Bolton, Saml.; Bosler,
L. C; Brown, H. W.; Buck, S. T.; Clark,
C. M.; Clark, J. S.; Clementa, H. M.;
Conn, J. W.; Cowperthwait, C. T.; Daly,
I. G.; Davis, E. S.; Gilmore, J. C.; Green,
J. S.; Hancock, W. W.; Houston, W. C.;
Lindsay, G.; Lippincott, Geo.; Lippincott,
R.; MacDonald, Robin; Mills, C. S.;
Moorhouse, W. L.; Newton, H. B.; Patterson,
G. S.; Peet, E. B.; Potter, Wilson;
Richmond, G. N.; Roberts, Walter; Rolls,
T. M. S.; Steel, H. J.; Suddards, G. O.;
Thayer, W.; Thompson, J. M.; Whitaker,
A. L.; Wilson, W. E.; Zebley, J. W.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I may have missed it in the multitude of posts on this thread or others on this topic, but where did you find the P&O letters?  I guess the records there, wherever there is, were incomplete since you don't seem to have the critical contour map that was sent under separate cover at the beginning of February, 1911.  Have you searched at the Dep't of Agriculture?  It sure would be nice to find at least one map with a plan on it, or just one plan.  Given the fact that no plan on paper has ever been found makes me wonder whether there ever was one (other than Barker's).  Is it possible that they (whoever they are) designed the course via stakes in the ground?

The letters come from the USGA Green Section. I believe P&O founded that organization. I've asked the USGA if they have the map and they don't. I have not checked with the DOA.

Any thing is possible, but the fact they went to the trouble of making a contour map tells me the thought was to put a plan on paper.

[John_Conley]

I have read less than 1% of the posts on this thread.  I am, however, impressed with its length.  And girth.

Is there a chance the TV network (NBC?) will invite the historians posting on this thread for a tournament preview segment before the US Open?