[Mike_Cirba]

Has anyone attempted to answer a single question or dispute a single fact I laid out in my initial post on this thread, where I very respectfully tried to outline the timeline as I see it?

Ran and/or Ben,

This was not my intent with this thread.

Please delete it.

Thanks

[JESII]

Mike,

I think the timeline of the Francis Swap was the meat of this thread...certainly my conversations with you and Tom and posts on here were about that...Shivas seemed pretty focussed on the timing of the swap as well...as you said the other day, the two primary camps are so entrenched they leave no middle ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sullivan,

That's precisely the problem, some don't want to explore the merits of the others position.

All too often, "automatic refutation" is the first response.

What I find counter productive is that every time a new fact/item is discovered, we're told what it means by the publisher, rather than letting the fact/item being published speak for itself, then be analyzed by the tree house.

Some of us are actually capable of reading and a few of us are actually capable of comprehending what's been written.
What I object to is when I'm told what the sole interpretation of the writings means.

David,

I don't think Merion and/or MCC provided access to their records with the understanding that the parties granted access would selectively use the material discovered to discredit you.

My guess is that the parties requested access and were granted access and that the parties, not Merion and/or MCC determined what they would mine and publish.

I would agree that a thorough discovery process would have been beneficial to all, but, the situation doesn't seem to lend itself to that type of disclosure at this time.

Many clubs are discovering the value of their archives.
Some are digitizing them and will probably make them available.
Other clubs don't seem interested in their archives and are content to let them gather dust.

Unfortunately, when trying to reconstruct the chronological history of a golf course you're at the mercy of the particular club's policy.

On another note.

I've attending an inordinate number of club Board meetings for over 20 years and unfortunately, the minutes don't always reflect what actually transpired.  However, they remain as the only written record, irrespective of how accurate, sanitized or edited they may be.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

While you started the thread, others have contributed, and it is not yours to delete. 

And a few of us have attempted to address your initial post.  Repeatedly. 
________________________________________
Jim,

With all due respect, I am not so sure that it is accurate to portray each camp as “firmly entrenched.”   If new facts (or new analysis of the same facts) suggest that my understanding of the timing of the swap is mistaken, I’d be glad to reconsider.   But after a year of Tom and Wayne posturing and puffing about how the MCC documents directly and completely undercut my theory, we find that there really isn’t much of anything there that even calls my understanding into question.   And what little new information has been suggested hasn’t been brought forward in any sort of useable form.   Instead, as usual, we have tenuous and ambiguous partial descriptions or fragments (not even complete sentences) and we are TOLD that the partially divulged information settles the issue, and that I should just shut up and take Tom’s word for it.   

So how is it that I am supposed to carefully consider fragments and attenuated partial descriptions?    On what basis am I to reject what I consider to be the clear and unambiguous language of the Francis description?   

Seriously, am I really just supposed take Tom’s word for it that I am wrong about this, without questioning or vetting his factual basis for so asserting?    And if I refuse to so do, does that mean that I am “firmly entrenched” and unwilling to budge despite the evidence?   I think we need verifiable evidence before anyone can make that assessment.

_____________________________________

Patrick wrote:
"I don't think Merion and/or MCC provided access to their records with the understanding that the parties granted access would selectively use the material discovered to discredit you.

My guess is that the parties requested access and were granted access and that the parties, not Merion and/or MCC determined what they would mine and publish."

Patrick,

Given that Wayne is a member at Merion and is involved in putting together their Merion’s archives, I think that this is a distinction without a difference here.   

Plus, Wayne and TEPaul’s selective use of this information is a very strong indication that their repeated reference to the club's privacy concerns is nothing but a smokescreen set up so that they can repress that which hurts their argument while releasing that which they think helps their argument.

The ONLY acceptable excuse for not divulging the information is that the clubs have explicitly indicated that they do not want it divulged.  Yet these two are obviously free to divulge whatever they want, and I am having trouble understanding what any of this has to to with the clubs wishes. Also, TEPaul’s increasingly bizarre insistence that I grovel before him and Wayne before he will tell me anything more is confirmation that what is released and not released has nothing to do with Merion or MCC but is purely up to Wayne and Tom. 

In other words, I am not willing to accept that this is just two yahoo's abusing their relationships with the clubs.   Wayne is a member of Merion and is involved with putting together their archives.   Both TEPaul and Wayne are involved in putting together the new archives at the USGA.   So when they start selectively throwing around the archived information of these clubs, I think we have to assume that they are doing so with the clubs’ implicit or explicit consent, or that the clubs really don't care one way or another.

______________________________________

It might help to understand where I am coming from here if we review something Wayne wrote about determining design credit for various courses BEFORE my essay came out:

Wayne Wrote:

If all available information is compiled and made available, each can make his own subjective determination according to their own standards for design attribution.  All I'm saying is there will be a central clearing house for golf architecture and it will aid in determinations. 

I understand there is room for interpretation.  There are some that give design credit without knowing all the information available such as Macdonald and Whigham at Merion.  I don't think we will ever know what Macdonald and Whigham did at Merion so there is no need to speculate and make attributions based solely on interpolations of vague statements.  All existing information will be available to everyone so that interested parties can make their own informed decisions based upon their own criteria.  They will not have to rely upon determinations made by unknown processes.

Yet here we are a few years later, and Wayne and TomPaul are insisting that all the existing information WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE, and that we MUST RELY ON THEIR DETERMINATIONS made by unknown processes and based on undisclosed information. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Now that the sturm und drang has quieted out, I'd like to get back to the maps and what they tell us about the early days at Merion.  So, going back a few pages.....

Bryan,

Is it possible that Francis mispoke or was misquoted?  Sure it is possible.  But it is not just the dimensions of the swapped property.  We'd have to throw out the entire Francis statement to make TEPaul's theory work.

The entire point of the Francis statement is that they could not fit the final five holes onto the course, and that he swapped for land and solved this problem.   If the 1910 plan accurately depicts the state of the land BEFORE the swap, then he would have had no such problem.  The holes fit.   How do you draw the conclusion that the holes fit.  Looking at my overlay, I'd say the currently configured holes marginally don't fit.  Which is not to say that some configuration of the requisite number of holes couldn't have been fitted in there, but I have trouble with your categorical statement that "the holes" fit.

TEPaul claims that the 1910 plan accurately reflects the land before the swap, but it is easy to fit the holes on this plan.  So if TEPaul is correct, then the entire Francis Story must be discarded.   While TEPaul and Mike are willing to discard eye witness accounts at their pleasure, I am not.


"If it was there because the Francis land swap was already in the minds of those that instructed the surveyors to draw the map, why does it look like the other land to be swapped to the HDC, in return, down near the clubhouse between the blue and red roads, isn't also reflected in the 1910 map?"


I cannot get into the heads of the surveyors or those instructing them, but it looks to me like they anticipated a swap of a longer, shallower, swath of land.  Could be that they were told "you need to change the road, we need about 100 yards or so next to the bottom of the Haverford land, and take it  out of somewhere further down the road . . ."   Remember the road was marked APPROXIMATE LOCATION, so the surveyors probably didn't know EXACTLY where it would go.   But your question raises another point  . . . Thanks for the speculation. Can we agree that the map as drawn does not show what we would expect to see in the way of reduced acreage across from the clubhouse stated in the swap story and that we don't know why it doesn't show it?

TEPaul claims that the 1910 map perfectly shows the 117 acre parcel that Haverford would purchase.  But this too is wrong.  The Golf Course land pictured is more than 117 acres, I agree that it shows more than 117 acres.  Out of curiosity, what do you think the acreage is, and how did you measure it?for the very reason you provide above;  there is too much golf course land across from the clubhouse. How much excess acreage do you measure there? 

The rest of the border looks to be about accurate, and the total purchased was 117 acres, same as in the 1910 plan.  So we can net out the differences between the acreage created by the APPROXIMATE road with the acreage created by the final road.   Comparing the two, the APPROXIMATE road creates too much land.

_______________________________________________________________________

Shivas, what your saying could be true, but there is another issue with TEPaul's interpretation.

Are you too curious with what comes after "adjoining . . .."

[Bryan Izatt]

"TEPaul claims that the 1910 map perfectly shows the 117 acre parcel that Haverford would purchase.  But this too is wrong.  The Golf Course land pictured is more than 117 acres, for the very reason you provide above;  there is too much golf course land across from the clubhouse."



The above is a completely fallacious statement!

1. In president Evans' statement to the board he mentioned the 117 acres for a golf course had been negotiated by Connell and Lloyd.
2. Nickolson of HDC writes a letter to Evans making an offer of the 117 acres for $85,000.
3. After approval by the board Evans writes Nickolson back agreeing to his offer on behalf of MCC. This was not a option between HDC and MCC as your essay contends (the only options were between HDC and a few landowners), it was merely an agreement in principle provided MCC agree to create a golf course. Evan says to Nickolson MCC first needs to set up and register a corporation (The MCC Golf Association Co) and then they will proceed to lay off (he actually said that) a golf course on the 117 acres of land.
4. In Lloyd's circular to the membership on Nov. 15, 1910 explaining the course and the development (HDC) to the west and north he also references the 117 acres had been secured for a golf course and he also refernces in the same circular that the 117 acres for THE GOLF COURE is depicted in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan.    


So you are absolutely wrong. The area in green (PROPOSED GOLF COURSE) on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan is 117 acres!


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

As best I can measure the 1910 map, I'd say that the area of the golf course property presented on the map is approximately 122 acres.  Which is not to say that the 117 acre number is wrong; just that the map as scaled doesn't exactly agree with it.

The more I look at the 11-15-1910 map the less convinced I am as to its accuracy.  And, quite apart from the photographic distortion and the "approximate" location of the road.  If you look at the the southeast part of the land around hole 10, the distance from Ardmore to the southern boundary is approximately 920 feet on the 11-15-1910 map, while it is 880 feet on the 1913 map.  Which is correct?  I don't recall anybody saying that land was swapped down there in those three years.  The 1910 map also shows the tributary to Cobbs Creek to be about half way between Ardmore and the southern boundary, while the 1913 map shows it closer to the southern boundary.  Unless the creek was rerouted, the 1913 map seems like a more accurate depiction.

I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of the 1910 map.  Perhaps like the "approximate" location of the road, maybe the rest of the map was also more of a marketing tool representing the proposed golf course deal rather than a precise surveying map.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

No Tom.   I don't just make these things up.  The acreage shown as the golf course is substantially larger than the 117 acres it is supposed to be.   You can see this from even looking at Bryan's overlay.   Plus, I've measured it.   But why don't you go out and pace off the metes and bounds and calculate it yourself? 

For anyone confused:Count me among the confused.

1.  The area Merion ultimately purchased was 117 yards.   
2.  TEPaul claims that the area marked "golf course" on the 1910 plan was 117 yards.
3.  If the Francis Swap occurred AFTER the Plan was created, then any swap was quid pro quo.  Equal Acreage for Equal Acreage. How do you know that the swap was quid pro quo?  Why couldn't they just have adjusted the boundaries in any way that they saw fit?  If MCC lost acreage by the 14th tee, then they had to pick up land somewhere else. 
4.  Conservatively, between the 1910 plan and the actual purchase, MCC would have lost around 7.5 acres of land along Golf House Road across from the clubhouse.  Plus the lost the small triangle behind the 16th tee. By my measurement, they gave up 6.5 acres across from the clubhouse and picked up maybe an acre along the western edge of the triangle.  Those two deltas would bring the area back around 117 acres.
5.  According to TEPaul an Mike, they gained what? An acre or less?   

Where did MCC pick up the other 6 acres?   Nowhere. The road was in its APPROXIMATE LOCATION. 

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

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

While you started the thread, others have contributed, and it is not yours to delete. 

And a few of us have attempted to address your initial post.  Repeatedly. 
________________________________________

David,

You have not attempted to answer a single question I've asked throughout this thread in any way, shape, or form, much less the four questions I outlined in my very first post. 

Instead, from you first post here, you've continued in on your ongoing war with Tom Paul about the MCC minutes.   I asked you, multiple times, to perhaps just let's move on because I felt you were at a disadvantage given your lack of access.

I also resent and would disagree with your contention that I selectively used the MCC Minutes.

At all times the only information from the minutes I used was what was already released here by Tom, and what was therefore also available to you, as well.   I believe that was fair because we were both on the same page.

At no time did I try to reconstruct other language from my perusal of the minutes a few months ago, nor did I try to use any additional information they contained to some unfair advantage.   In one case I did tell you that my remembrance of the part of the Francis Land Swap mention in the April 19th, 1911 minutes was I believe a half sentence, although I would not try to recall the wording from memory.

Also, please also do not tell me what I can and can't request of the site adminstrators.


Bryan,

I find your assessment of the map very interesting.

Honestly, I believe that David is trying to have that November 1910 map both ways.

He's simultaneously trying to argue that the appearance of a semi-triangular plot of land in the northern corner is proof that the Francis Land Swap happened prior to then while...

...also arguing that because the dimensions of that map clearly do not fit the golf course that was built and opened in 1912 that the words "Approximate Location of Road" means that one has to excuse the fact the dimensions of that triangle are less than 75% as wide as what Francis described.

I don't think you can have it both ways, and frankly, the existence of that trianglular shaped plot on the 1910 map, no matter how badly configured, or mismeasured, or proposed, or not drawn to scale still seems to be the only shred of evidence that remains that leaves any of this in the slightest bit of doubt.

On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone, much less Macdonald and Whigham, proposing that Merion only buy land as far north as 65 yards beyond the quarry because it would make absolutely no sense from even the most fundamental of course routing perspectives, as David suggests.  (if some of that triangle was not already there prior to the Francis swap).

The fact is, that would only permit nothing more than a single par three around the quarry and M&W had already made clear that they thought "much could be done" with the quarry as a hazard.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

Brian,

Thanks for trying this again.

However, the lines of the road are very thick and it hides quite a bit of what doesn't fit.  The thickness of the roads is to scale from the maps.  To scale on the map they are approx 42 feet wide.  From the current Google map the roads are about 32 feet wide including the margins.  I'd guess that the map drawers were not accurately to scale in drawing the width of the roads.  As per previous posts I'm now beginning to question the overall accuracy of the 1910 map.

I'd also question something....

From the left inside boundary of the road we know that the 1913 map is 130 yards to the right boundary.  I measure it at 123+/- yards.  It would be really helpful if you could put three dots on the Google map I provided back on page 8 to indicate where the property line surveyor stakes are currently on the east side.  Tom indicated that they're 20 yards to the east of 16 tee, and you indicated they are under the trees.  Can you mark them on the Google map?  They are still in the same place as 1913, no?

From the left inside boundary of the road we know that the 1910 map is less than 100 yards to the right boundary.

I think it's about 95 yards, but for discussion purposes, let's say it's 100 so the base of the triangle on the 1910 map is about 75% as wide as the 1913 map...would you agree?Sure, somewhere around 95 to 100 yards, although I'm questioning the accuracy of the 1910 map.

Why does it appear that the 1910 western boundary is very close to the 1913 western boundary...probably closer to 85-90% at the base of the triangle?

I think you've slightly and miscalculated mislocated the 1910 western boundary...Perhaps.  Back to my request. Can you locate the boundary on the current Google map?  Do we agree that the boundary in 1910 and 1913 should be in the same place.in fact, I recall from an earlier attempt that today's 1st green didn't fit into what was purchased either.

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

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

THANK YOU for all of your efforts here....I mean that very sincerely.

It's nice to see someone working towards solutions and trying to answer questions.

I will take a shot at this later this evening and will try to be as precise as possible.

Thanks again.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

You've raised lots of interesting points and I'd like to respond, but it is tough to keep up.

I should have been more specific as to of "the holes" I was referring.  When I wrote that "the holes fit" I meant that the 15th green and 16th tee fit in the area next to the Haverford College land, or would with a very slight changes.   

As far as I know, based on FRANCIS' STATEMENT, this was the only land Merion gained in the swap.   If these holes could have been fit in before the swap, then this would have negated Francis entire premise of the swap.   No need to swap for land if the holes already fit. 

"Can we agree that the map as drawn does not show what we would expect to see in the way of reduced acreage across from the clubhouse stated in the swap story and that we don't know why it doesn't show it?"


I see what you are saying, but No.  I cannot agree to that.  I think the swap occurred much earlier and before the purchase acreage was set at 117 acres.  I also doubt that it could have been a quid pro quo, like acreage for like acreage swap.  So I don't have the same necessary expectation about what need be given up and what need be gained as Tom and Mike do.

"I agree that it shows more than 117 acres.  Out of curiosity, what do you think the acreage is, and how did you measure it?for the very reason you provide above;  there is too much golf course land across from the clubhouse. . . . How much excess acreage do you measure there? "

My measure and yours roughly correspond.   

The more I look at the 11-15-1910 map the less convinced I am as to its accuracy.  And, quite apart from the photographic distortion and the "approximate" location of the road.  If you look at the the southeast part of the land around hole 10, the distance from Ardmore to the southern boundary is approximately 920 feet on the 11-15-1910 map, while it is 880 feet on the 1913 map.  Which is correct?  I don't recall anybody saying that land was swapped down there in those three years.

Damn it, Bryan, are you trying to steal my thunder?  You've discovered the problem with TEPaul's latest assumptions regarding the minutes.

There was another swap, and for this particular land. Again, I don't have the Minutes, but do have evidence that this was the swap referred to in the in the April meeting minutes.   As the meeting minutes suggest, there was a swap of land purchased for "land adjacent . . . "  likely adjacent to Ardmore avenue.   Otherwise it would have been a swap of land purchased for land purchased.

If you look at the width of this particular land I think you will find that the course gave up land to the east of this land in exchange for pushing the land up next to the border.   Look at the 1908 Atlas and you can see the difference.  This swap undercuts TEPaul's latest attempt to disprove my Francis swap theory.  Not only that, but this is another example where they have missed something crucial to understanding what happened.     

I'll track down the precise deeds when I make it to Philadelphia.  Or I'd be glad to provide the information on how to do so to Merion, but not to Wayne or TEPaul.

___________

Oh yeah.  I dont think it was a quid pro quo swap.  That is there assumption, given that they think they started with 117 acres and finished with the same. 

[Mike_Cirba]

I should have been more specific as to of "the holes" I was referring.  When I wrote that "the holes fit" I meant that the 15th green and 16th tee fit in the area next to the Haverford College land, or would with a very slight changes.   

As far as I know, based on FRANCIS' STATEMENT, this was the only land Merion gained in the swap.   If these holes could have been fit in before the swap, then this would have negated Francis entire premise of the swap.   No need to swap for land if the holes already fit. 

David,

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

The fact that the 15th green and 16th tee fit into the corner adjacent to the "Approximate Location of Road" is proof that the Francis Land Swap existed before the map was drawn...

...but the fact that much of the rest of the holes, including the left side of the 15th fairway, the 15th tee, and the 14th green DON'T FIT are simply anomalies based on the fact that it was an "Approximate Location of Road"??   


btw, I'm seeing the land owned by John Marshall Gest south of the property measuring 126 acres in both 1908 and 1913.   Is this the land you're referring to as the additional swap?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I've explained it numerous times.  If you disagree you disagree.  No skin off my nose, and no need to rehash it.    

And no, I am not referring to the Gest land (although it is possible there was a swap with this land at some point as well.)  The Gest land is not adjacent to Ardmore Avenue.  And even if it was, the acreages wouldn't necessarily change in a swap.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I misread your post and was talking about another discrepancy.    I cannot explain why those measures were off in the southeast corner, but was referring to the southwest corner, where there was some sort of exchange.     As I said to Mike,  there may have been more than one.   Or the map might just be off. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

I misread your post and was talking about another discrepancy.    I cannot explain why those measures were off in the southeast corner, but was referring to the southwest corner, where there was some sort of exchange.     As I said to Mike,  there may have been more than one.   Or the map might just be off. 

Bryan/David,

I'm seeing about 50 feet of discrepancy between the 1908 and 1913 maps between Ardmore Avenue to the north and the southern boundary.

I'll try to measure the November 1910 map next.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let me try that again...

[JESII]

David,

I think it's interesting that you do the same thing Wayne and Tom do with regards to information you have that they do not...yet you cry about them doing so...do you think if you brought forward this latest sawp concept when you forst discovered it this thread might have moved a little smoother...

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If I see the land you're talking about on the western end near Ardmore Avenue, it appears that they gave up land adjacent to the road between 1908 til 1913, yet the acreages of the surrounding properties remain consistent.

Where are you suggesting they got land back?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think it's interesting that you do the same thing Wayne and Tom do with regards to information you have that they do not...yet you cry about them doing so...do you think if you brought forward this latest sawp concept when you forst discovered it this thread might have moved a little smoother...

1.  I first discovered it a few years ago, and I explained it to Wayne after my essay came out, along with quite a few other things, some of which he and TEPaul now claim they have always known and some of which he and TEPaul apparently still don't understand or accept.

2.  When TEPaul finally gave us a fragment of the minutes on here, along with his theory, I immediately told him that his reading and theory were wrong and and that I would be glad to provide him with my basis for saying so, provided that he agree to provide me his bases for claiming my theories were wrong as well.  But TEPaul would have none of this.    Do you really expect me to continue to help them when they will not provide me with their basis for any of their claims??   

3.  I don't like playing these sort of games (and am obviously not very good at them) but I really have tired of me helping them and getting nothing but scorn and ridicule in return.   At this point, the vast majority of their understanding of the details of what happened can be traced directly back to my essay, or at least the accurate parts of their understanding can.  Yet every day I have to listen to how they knew it all from the beginning, and everything I said is wrong.   I am tired of it, and will no longer go out of my way to help them understand anything.   I've tried to cooperate and they will have nothing of it.  When they show some cooperation, so will I.

4.  That being said, the answer to your question is yes.   But things would have gone much much smoother for the past year if they had treated this like a civil conversation instead of a baseless witch hunt.   

I am all for open and complete exchange of information.  Which is why I gave them everything (including this) up front.   But it has got to be a two way street. 

__________________________

Mike,

If I give you two acres, and you give me two acres, do either of our total acreages change?   If not, then why do you think the acreages would change with this SWAP?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I misread your post and was talking about another discrepancy.    I cannot explain why those measures were off in the southeast corner, but was referring to the southwest corner, where there was some sort of exchange.     As I said to Mike,  there may have been more than one.   Or the map might just be off. 

Bryan/David,

I'm seeing about 50 feet of discrepancy between the 1908 and 1913 maps between Ardmore Avenue to the north and the southern boundary.

I'll try to measure the November 1910 map next.

I measured the 1908 map.  So far my score is:

1908   920 feet

1910   920 feet

1913   880 feet

Curiouser and curiouser??  In 1908 the boundary with the 126 acre Gest estate is straight.  In 1910 the boundary is sill 920 feet on the eastern end but has a 40 foot jog to the south on the western portion of it.  A bite out of the Gest estate on the 11-15-1910 map.  On the 1913 map the jog is still there, but the boundary has moved north about 40 feet so Gest still has 126 acres.  Net effect between 1908 and 1913 is zero acreage change in the Gest estate, but obviously some land is swapped with Gest.  Meanwhile it calls into question the accuracy of the 1910 map where HDC seems to have appropriated an acre or so of Gest's estate. Poor cartography?  Misleading advertising.  Backroom deals by the captains of industry? ..............

[JESII]

I probably should know where these are, but could someone post the 1908 and 1913 maps? Thanks in advance.



David,

I don't know what to think to be honest...I'm pretty amazed that adults are capable of acting like this...

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

I get the same results.

I thought someone here should agree with someone else about something.  

David,

You still didn't answer my question.

I am assuming a swap was for equal land on both sides of the transaction.  

Which land in the northwest area south of Ardmore Ave. do you think they swapped for?

[Bryan Izatt]

Re the lower portion of Merion, here is an overlay of the 1908 and 1913 RR maps (Jim, which are at http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlas.html).  The swap in the NW corner below Ardmore looks like the red area for the blue area.  Eyeballing them it looks like a one for one swap.  More curious is the SE Gest corner swap that looks like just Merion giving up acreage (green area) to Gest with no return.  But, they got some more of that back some years later to extend 11 and 12 down there, didn't they.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

If that isn't the damndest thing!

It appears they gave up land along the right of today's 6th hole, making that tee shot partially blind and somewhat impinged on the right side to gain land up along Ardmore Avenue that they didn't use for the golf course behind the original #2 green.

Stranger yet is giving up about 15 yards in length down behind the original 10th tee, 11th green, etc.

What this also means is that the November 15, 1910 Land Plan is an accurate representation of the land they intended to use for the golf course at that point in time, down to the square foot, independently verified by the identical dimensions of the 1908 Railroad Map.

Another interesting thing on the 1913 map is they already had the course routing for Merion West laid out, although that novice Hugh Wilson had only just opened the East course for play and the West wouldn't open until Memorial Day, 1914.

Joe Bausch tells me that Merion West might be the best routing he's ever seen, but we know how biased he is.   

It's also very cool to see that today's number three green was indeed built atop a barn.

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way, that land swap transaction over by today's number 2 and number 6 indicated by Bryan on the Red/Blue coloring....

Anyone want to guess when it happened?   

I promise I won't sandbag this one longer than a few hours to see if anyone can guess correctly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()