[DMoriarty]

In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots.  To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of . . .

So close.  But I think there was at least one other purchase, part of the Macfadden place, north of College Avenue.  I don't remember the acreage.   

____________
Seriously, thanks for doing the western boundary of the College property.  I did it as well and  came up with almost the exact same thing.   No coordinates for the stone though.   

It is interesting that the border was so far West.     

Also, I measured the acreage using your line and the perendicular to the road (heading 245.9 degrees), and I came up with just under 4 acres.    I had previously come up with a lower number, but was not taking the border far enough south.    I think you had come up with a smaller acreage as well.  Can you confirm it?   

Thanks again.

[Bryan Izatt]

"I know you can, but are you going to?"


Bryan:

Using a survey map blueprint done in 1928 and assuming the base of the original triangle for the course as built was 130 yards wide (What I believe it is when walking it as well as assuming it was as a reflection of what Francis said it was in his 1950 story about the fix he was responsible for on #15 green and #16 tee, the base of that narrow triangle that was the result of the land swap between MCC and Haverford College 1928 is 26-28 yards wide. All of this matches what I walked off on the ground a couple of weeks using these very same dimensions. I did say from the top of the old triangle to the corner of the Haverford College ground was over 300 yards, remember? 

..........................   

Tom,

I was hoping for factual metes and bounds information.     Your response is predicated on the "triangle" in question and has two "assuming"s, one "believe", one approximation, and two walkings.  I'm sadly disappointed in my quest to factually nail down the boundary.

Mike,

Do you have a Blackberry?  Do you have a GPS app on it?  If not could you download one of the free ones from the Internet?  And, then go out and stand on the monument/surveyor stake that several people have said is out there and record and tell us where you are?

David,

Sorry to hear that your survey has no further info on the coordinates of the the monument.

[Bryan Izatt]

In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots.  To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of . . .

So close.  But I think there was at least one other purchase, part of the Macfadden place, north of College Avenue.  I don't remember the acreage.   The McFadden property is listed at 12 and 434/1000 acres in 1908 and in 1913 and in 1920.  So, 338 and a fraction acres based on the 5 properties explained above is where I'll rest, until proven wrong, of course.

____________
Seriously, thanks for doing the western boundary of the College property.  I did it as well and  came up with almost the exact same thing.   No coordinates for the stone though.   

It is interesting that the border was so far West.     

Also, I measured the acreage using your line and the perendicular to the road (heading 245.9 degrees), and I came up with just under 4 acres.    I had previously come up with a lower number, but was not taking the border far enough south.    I think you had come up with a smaller acreage as well.  Can you confirm it?  Which area are you measuring?  The "triangle" with the current road boundary? In any event, not tonight, I'm tired. 

Thanks again.

[DMoriarty]

In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots.  To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of . . .

So close.  But I think there was at least one other purchase, part of the Macfadden place, north of College Avenue.  I don't remember the acreage.   The McFadden property is listed at 12 and 434/1000 acres in 1908 and in 1913 and in 1920.  So, 338 and a fraction acres based on the 5 properties explained above is where I'll rest, until proven wrong, of course.

I stand corrected.  For now . . . .

____________

Seriously, thanks for doing the western boundary of the College property.  I did it as well and  came up with almost the exact same thing.   No coordinates for the stone though.   

It is interesting that the border was so far West.     

Also, I measured the acreage using your line and the perendicular to the road (heading 245.9 degrees), and I came up with just under 4 acres.    I had previously come up with a lower number, but was not taking the border far enough south.    I think you had come up with a smaller acreage as well.  Can you confirm it?  Which area are you measuring?  The "triangle" with the current road boundary? In any event, not tonight, I'm tired. 

I was measuring the triangle which really isnt a triangle, from the middle of the current road to your line designating the western border of the College property..   I took another look at the 1928 deed and noticed a few things interesting that I had forgotten.   I will double check it and clue you in tomorrow, and will be able to provide you some more metes and bounds.   If you think about my description of the western boundary and the concept of metes and bounds, you might be able to figure it out beforehand. 

[TEPaul]

"That was a brief summary of part of my theory, Tom.  Mike has been misrepresenting this part of my theory, so I was reminding him what it was again.
The supporting facts have been been explained ad nauseum.   But if you have any specific questions, I'd be glad to answer them."


David Moriarty:

Thank you very much. I appreciate that and I do have some very specific questions of you even if you claim you have already explained them ad nauseum. May I begin to ask them now while reminding you that you have asked that we try to stick to facts and not speculations? 




"I thought we were waiting for you to come up with a FACTUAL refutation.  But so far all we have are insults and righteous indignation.
When can we expect your FACTUAL refutation?  How about that FACTUAL outline?  How is that coming?  Writer's block?"



I believe I did do that and it is contained in my post #463. My facts in that post all are supported by the real and factual acre numbers involved through the first deed involving MCC land, the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting, the Thompson resolution in that board meeting and the second deed when H.Gates Lloyd passed the land for Merion East over to Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation (of which he was the president). All the acreage totals and increments in that post which I took from the records stated above I consider to be refutation of your interpretation of the timing of the Francis land swap are factual.

Ask me questions about them if you like. Are you ready for my questions of you that will also try to separate facts from speculations?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

When Mike Cirba asked me what the 5th tract of HDC was I said 68 acres north of College Ave, but you seem to have picked up on the actual acreage. I'm sorry I've been reading off hand written meeting minutes and the 3 in the 63.6 has always looked like an 8 to me because the writer has the end of an "f" from the a word in the line above coming right down into the 3. 

[TEPaul]

"In looking at your smooth curvilinear "approximate" road network are you seeing a Mae West form?  "


Bryan Izatt:

You may be the Immaculate Google Earth Measurer but apparently you don't know much about MAE WEST. If Pugh and Hubbard or Lloyd or Connell or whomever else was responsible for the curvature of that "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15 1910 land plan where seeing Mae West when they drew it they would have taken the curve of that road clear out to the western border of the Davis Farm to the west, brought it back to about where the 16th green is today and then taken it all the way back out to the same western border and then swung it back hard to about where it ends up today at Ardmore Ave.

Furthermore MCC would've had to buy at least 50 more acres of the proposed residential development and considering I've driven that Club House Road about 157 times two and a half sheets to the wind if that road curved like Mae West from Ardmore on the south to College on the north there isn't much question I would very likely be dead now!   

No sir, the curvature of that road on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan looks quite a lot more like one of those 1980s 6'1" New York fashion models than it does MAE WEST!

Furthermore, if MCC and Lloyd and the Boys wanted a road curvature along side their golf course to look like Mae West, I'm quite sure it wouldn't have been Macdonald and Raynor they got down there to advise them in June 1910 and that it more likely would've been W.C. Fields they called in to advise them!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Straight, harsh, rectangular roads were for the business of the madding crowds in the city...

The aesthetic needed out here in the land of the country gentlemen was much less practical and more artistically sophisticated and gentler on the eye.

Here's David's own drawing of the road system that was quickly built;

Mike,

This map (provided by David last year?) was the original piece of "evidence" that led me to believe it was a road jiggle that Francis proposed.  Its funny how much the boundaries and road alignments have changed on his newer offerings.  If his blue pencil verion of last year is anywhere near correct, I would agree that we have made far more of this than necessary AND perhaps Francis added a bit of drama in telling the story. 

Of course, David will argue now (with some logic) that the near fit of the road alignment also shows that the routing was at least sort of fleshed out by Nov 10, 1910.  But, if MCC bought 3 more acres, it could have been a road jiggle AND a triangle land purchase.  Uh, oh!  But that would suggest that the routing wasn't worked out earlier, at least very well......but we already knew that!

I am going on the record as firmly stating that my opinion is.....I don't know what the heck went on!

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Here are the metes and bounds of the property line of the border of the MCC land from College Ave to the point on the southwest corner of the Haverford College land from the land transfer from Lloyd to Rothwell and Rothwell by deed to MCCGA the same day (July 21, 1910). This, of course, is the very same boundary line between the MacFadden place and Haverford College and the old Johnson Farm at the top of the "L".

"All that certain tract of land situated in Haverford Township, in the County of Delaware and the State of Pennsylvania, bounded as follows, viz. BEGINNING at a stone in the center line of College Avenue, a corner of the land of Lews P. Geiger, Junior, running thence south twenty three degrees (23) and fifty eight (58) minutes east nine hundred and eighty three and forty eight one hundreths (983.48) feet to a point."   

This is of course the original line I mentioned I walked the other day which was over 300 yards long down the left side of #16 (to the original eastern base of what we seem to call "The Triangle" 

Measure your ass off you Immaculate Google Earthing Measurer. If you get something significantly different than Merion G.C. has which I walked off the other day, let me know and I'll call Merion G.C. and tell them they better get a hold of their real estate lawyer and maybe think about suing somebody over a century old boundary error.

BUT, if they take this to court with your GOOGLE EARTHING measurments and you turn out to be wrong then not just Merion G.C. will sue you, the entire force of the "Philadelpia Syndrome Society" will turn against you and you will be dragged into the secret catacombs of the "Philadelphia Syndrome Society" that is underneath Merion's historic clubhouse and what will happen to you next definitely won't be pretty. That's the bad news. The good news is you can probably have a free round on the East Course before we really mess you up! And if we need to get rid of all semblance of evidence that you or you car or whatever was even there we have a pretty interesting piece of equipment and process for that too. Would you like to hear about that as well before you begin your GOOGLE EARTHING measurements of the great Merion East golf course? The good news about that is the look of the whole thing would seem to indicate its quick enough to be virtually painless! Also, when you vanish seemingly into thin air, the secret vestiges on Wall Street of Drexel and Morgan and Co. (that have known connections to the Masons, the Nights Templar etc) will own your house and sell you wife and children into slavery somewhere between Beirut and Addis Ababa.

So fire off your GOOGLE EARTH measurments whenever you're ready!

[Mike_Cirba]

Have at it, Fellows.   I'll be interested to see what the measurements work out to, but at least I now know one thing beyond all certainty and the rest of you do as well.

The November 15, 1910 "Land Plan" isn't good evidence, much less proof of anything that happened before or after November 15, 1910, other than Merion was proposing to build a golf course and offer real estate to its members.

It was basically an advertising flyer, with a squiggly road drawn up the middle to roughly approximate the division between golf course and real estate, essentially dividing the eastern and western halves of the northern portion of the Johnson farm.

To say it's somehow proof that Francis did his Land Swap before then is almost funny! 

Bryan,

You want me to walk out on the 16th tee with GPS?

Now THAT'S funny! 

Even funnier is I'm considering it, but it's not something I can get to this weekend.

[DMoriarty]

"I thought we were waiting for you to come up with a FACTUAL refutation.  But so far all we have are insults and righteous indignation.
When can we expect your FACTUAL refutation?  How about that FACTUAL outline?  How is that coming?  Writer's block?"



I believe I did do that and it is contained in my post #463. My facts in that post all are supported by the real and factual acre numbers involved through the first deed involving MCC land, the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting, the Thompson resolution in that board meeting and the second deed when H.Gates Lloyd passed the land for Merion East over to Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation (of which he was the president). All the acreage totals and increments in that post which I took from the records stated above I consider to be refutation of your interpretation of the timing of the Francis land swap are factual.

Ask me questions about them if you like.

I'm confused.  That post contains no time line, and it couldn't be the refutation you promised of my post 501, for obvious reasons. Oh well.

Your post 463 contains a number of serious errors and I can make no sense of it. 

What I never considered that seriously is there always was a section of the old Johnson Farm that clearly was never considered for any golf course (when you see where it was you'll see why). That section can certainly easily be measured by the metes and bounds of that particular section of the farm from the old deeds metes and bounds through multiple owners (which again should all match).

I think that section was 23 acres. Take the 117 (amount of land MCC agreed to buy from HDC for $85,000) from the 140 Johnson Farm total and you have 23 acres.

 117 (MCC agreed to buy)
+21 (Dallas Estate)
=138
-120 Lloyd turned over to MCCGA
=18

Except that the 21 acre Dallas Estate was part of the 117 Acres that MCC agreed to buy from HDC.  So none of this makes sense.   Your 18 acres should read 39 acres.  And that area was NOT 39 Acres. 

I think when Wilson and Committee began working on laying out courses there were 21 acres between the delineation of Club House Road on their survey maps and the boundary of the old Johnson Farm to the west between College and Ardmore Aves. I think that was squeezing them up in that existing triangle on their topo survey maps.

Except that there was plenty of room.  Because you have double counted the Dallas Estate.

So much for your FACTUAL refutation.
_____________________________

[TEPaul]

"Even funnier is I'm considering it,"

I would not advise that; at least not unless you're carrying some pretty serious "heat" with you, like at least a couple of AK-47s. You also better get really proficient with you GPS coordinants to Bryn otherwise the medical helicopeters probably won't find you in time on the property before your ass is grass.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I wrote to Jim;

Jim,

David told us that the original 117 acres they purchased was included within the red lines;

You wrote to Jim;

- I NEVER TOLD YOU THAT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE!   They WERE OFFERED the land within the red lines, but they did not accept the offer because THE LAST FIVE HOLES DID NOT FIT AS THEY HAD HOPED, so they negotiated the addition of the north corner and the gave up a bunch of land they did not need to the east.    Then Lloyd bought the property.  Then they refined the plan.


You're correct; I misstated your position, probably because I'm struggling to understand it.

What I should have said is that according to your theory, WHOEVER was trying to layout the course originally first designed 13 holes south of the clubhouse, including being so hemmed in they had to cross Ardmore Avenue 3 times in a row and then stick a little par three behind the clubhouse.

They did all of this and spent all of this time and energy and effort with Francis spending many hours in the field and all that jazz with what HAD to be an OBVIOUS limitation in the land...anyone with half a brain would have recognized there wasn't enough land proposed NORTH of the clubhouse to build the FIVE FINISHING HOLES OF A CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE, MUCH LESS USE THE PROPOSED QUARRY IN ANY WAY BUT A PAR THREE AS THEY ONLY HAD 65 YARDS TO WORK WITH BEYOND IT, AND THEY"D JUST USED UP ONE OF THEIR TWO BACK NINE PAR THREES.

It would have been like being down 65-0 with two minutes left in the Super Bowl and spending time figuring out how to get a running game going!

It's PREPOSTEROUS.

But, yes, you're right...they hadn't purchased it yet, and I did unintentionally misrepresent that.   Sorry for that.

I hope this clears that up.

Here's the land again you say they were trying to fit the final five holes into a the biggest exercise in futility than the Philadelphia Eagles Super Bowl dreams encircled in purple.   Yellow marks the quarry which was unusable for tee, fairway or green.

[DMoriarty]

What I should have said is that according to your theory, WHOEVER was trying to layout the course originally first designed 13 holes south of the clubhouse, including being so hemmed in they had to cross Ardmore Avenue 3 times in a row and then stick a little par three behind the clubhouse.

They did all of this and spent all of this time and energy and effort with Francis spending many hours in the field and all that jazz with what HAD to be an OBVIOUS limitation in the land...anyone with half a brain would have recognized there wasn't enough land proposed NORTH of the clubhouse to build the FIVE FINISHING HOLES OF A CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE, MUCH LESS USE THE PROPOSED QUARRY IN ANY WAY BUT A PAR THREE AS THEY ONLY HAD 65 YARDS TO WORK WITH BEYOND IT, AND THEY"D JUST USED UP ONE OF THEIR TWO BACK NINE PAR THREES.

NO Mike. This isn't a refutation of my theory.  It is your refutation of your own red herring.  My theory is that they had the entire area marked by the small yellow line.  The purple area is yours and nothing to do with anything relevant.

You obviously don't understand my theory and I'd appreciate if you would quit misrepresenting it.  Thanks. 

[Mike_Cirba]

NO Mike. This isn't a refutation of my theory.  It is your refutation of your own red herring.  My theory is that they had the entire area marked by the small yellow line.  The purple area is yours and nothing to do with anything relevant.

You obviously don't understand my theory and I'd appreciate if you would quit misrepresenting it.  Thanks. 

David,

Now it's you who isn't taking Richard Francis at his word!

Francis said the area west of Golf House Road was not "part of ANY golf layout" they were considering.

According to your theory, that land was previously dismissed as not worthy for golf for reasons I'll never understand but which you tried to explain in one post by suggesting that they couldn't fit the "kind of holes" that they wanted to build, as if special land was needed to build the templates suggested by Macdonald.

It makes no sense either, but if they had discounted that land, as FRANCIS TELL US, then all you're left with, and alll THEY were left with is the area in purple, yet they continued on their heroic, futile mission of laying out 13 holes anyway, knowing they were quickly and ultimately painting themselves into a deep quarry corner.

p.s.   And actually, as I think about it, I've probably drawn the area in purple TOO WIDE if you're still insisting that Nov 1910 Land Plan is some sort of evidence that creation of "the triangle", and thus the Francis Land Swap happened before then.   I should then use the dimensions of that map, and narrow those purple lines so that the 14th green, original 15th tee, and much of the left side of the 15th fairway would be outside the dimensions they were working with.

[TEPaul]

"Except that the 21 acre Dallas Estate was part of the 117 Acres that MCC agreed to buy from HDC.  So none of this makes sense.   Your 18 acres should read 39 acres.  And that area was NOT 39 Acres."



David Moriarty:

Excellent pick up. I always was a pretty shitty mathemetician. The beauty of this excersice is there are a couple of known incremental quantities through the two deeds (as well as the Thompson resolution of April, 19, 1911) and what I think I did is just transpose them on that numerical statement above. Transpose the same incremental quantities back where they should be on that statement and it should derive the same numerical final result. Let's see:

1. 117 acres (96 acres of the Johnson Farm + 21 acre Dallas Estate) Would you agree?
2. 161 acres (the total land Lloyd bought Dec, 19, 1910 (total 140 acres Johnson Farm + 21 acre Dallas Estate)) Would you agree?
3.  120 acres (the total Lloyd passed back to MCCGA on July 21, 1911) Would you agree?
4. 23 acres (the size of the rectangle of the Johnson Farm to the west never considered for the golf course) Would you agree?

161 minus 23=138 acres
138 minus 120=18 acres

So, I think 18 is the acreage between Golf House Road today and the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm.

And I think 21 was the acreage between the delineation of Club House Road on Wilson and Committee's topo survery maps they used to lay out the golf course (not the Nov, 15, 1910 land plan and its "approximate road location") and the same western boundary at the top of the 'L" of the old Johnson Farm.

That would explain where the exhange of ALREADY PURCHASED (Thompson's 4/19/1911 resolution) land for land adjoining AND the purchase of three additional acres for $7,500 (the price of 3 residential acreas of HDC, by the way) that was reflected in the Thompson resolution to the MCC board on April 19, 1911 CAME FROM as well as HOW it was done, and WHEN it was done (inside the confines of a Dec, 1910 to April 1911 to July 1911 TIMELINE) and I shouldn't really have to add again, this was AFTER Lloyd bought the 161 acres on Dec. 19, 1910 and not a number of months BEFORE he bought the land!

THESE are the actual FACTS from MCC (no speculation at all)and THOSE are the NUMBERS from MCC (and no speculation) and they very much are reflected in the records of Merion from Nov, 1910 to Dec. 19, 1910 to April 19, 1911 to July 21, 1911!

SO, I think what this factual and numerical excercise shows is the area WHERE the land exchange and purchase came from on the land, but also HOW it was done and again WHEN it was done within the aforementioned TIMELINE and definitely not OUTSIDE the aforementioned timeline (given just the actual FACTUAL textual records and FACTUAL numerical acreage increments and totals of this period of Merion East's creation).

[Kirk Gill]

In my very first post on the "Missing Faces" thread in April of 2008, I said this:

Another question – the 1910 property plan as pictured doesn’t have a routing on it. Why not, if the routing was already set? Other course maps of similar vintage feature the stick-style routings. Why not give the membership the benefit of this kind of information? Also, regarding the timing of the addition of the portion of land described by Richard Francis, how does the 1910 Property Plan illustration show that this parcel had already been purchased? The "approximate location of road" in fact looks narrower in the lower lobe and wider in the waist than the current iteration of Golf Club Road. Am I wrong here?

David, your reply was as follows:

You are assuming that Merion produced this Purchase plan, rather than the developers, and I don’t think this assumption is the most logical one.  But even if Merion had produced the map (I doubt they did) I’d have to speculate as to their reasons for leaving off a stick map, and I am trying not to speculate.

and

First, the map is not to exact scale, and contains a number of other imperfections in this regard.   Second, as I explained in the essay, a 1928 transaction involving the same section of the course confirms that the land up in this corner was part of the original purchase in 1911.  Third, this corner has been slightly altered over time, the 1928 transaction being an example.   See footnote 16.

I don't know what posting this is illustrative of, other than, strangely, it makes me want to sing Joni Mitchell songs......

[Mike_Cirba]

In my very first post on the "Missing Faces" thread in April of 2008, I said this:

blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., circuitious logic (my interpretation of what you just typed and copied, done in the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher)

I don't know what posting this is illustrative of, other than, strangely, it makes me want to sing Joni Mitchell songs......

Kirk,

I'm thinking more like Harry Chapin's "All My Life's A Circle" 

You dog you...you had this thing pegged back in April 2008!   It only took me 13 months to catch up!! 

[DMoriarty]

NO Mike. This isn't a refutation of my theory.  It is your refutation of your own red herring.  My theory is that they had the entire area marked by the small yellow line.  The purple area is yours and nothing to do with anything relevant.

You obviously don't understand my theory and I'd appreciate if you would quit misrepresenting it.  Thanks. 

David,

Now it's you who isn't taking Richard Francis at his word!

Francis said the area west of Golf House Road was not "part of ANY golf layout" they were considering.

No, Mike, that is not what he said.  You are combining two different fragments from different paragraphs to get the meaning you want, but that is not what he said.    He said:

We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout, perhaps we could swap for some we could use?

. . . SOME PROPERTY west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout . . .    He doesn't say how much, he doesnt say the exact cut off, he doesnt say which lay out(s) he had in mind when he was making the comparison.   He certainly doesnt say every single square inch of property to the west of what became Golf House Road was never ever even considered! 

Golf House road didn't exist yet!  We don't know the exact shape of what "lay out" they were considering at the time.   All we know is that whatever they were considering, they were not planning on going all the way to the Western border of the Johnson farm.  That is it. 

Yet you claim that the EVENTUAL location of the road was some magic border and there was no way they ever even seriously considered going even a few yards to the west of it?    There is no basis for this conclusion.

Presumably, your mistaken assumption is based in part on the next paragraph, where Francis wrote:

. . . The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.

But this describes the dimensions of the FINAL PRODUCT, which was not even tentatively set until they agreed to the purchase, and this was AFTER THEY HAD DECIDED TO GO UP INTO THE CORNER.    The final boundary may not have been set until much later. 

And when the road was set, it was NARROWLY TAILORED to fit the plan, and the plan included THE LAND UP IN THE CORNER.   You cannot simply apply the same border all the way back through time to where Francis and Lloyd were trying to figure out whether they could get the course they wanted to fit on THE ENTIRE AREA OFFERED.   It makes no sense.

Do you understand this?   Do you see how the final location of the road does not tell us what Francis/Lloydd/MCC/M&W/HHB may have been considering in the summer of 1910?    I don't think it is that complicated, and I have explained it before, but you keep getting MY THEORY wrong.

You don't have to agree with me Mike, but you cannot just change my theory to suit yourself. 

[TEPaul]

My God, I know I probably thought of it before in something of a vacuum but one of the beauties of that factual and numerical excercise in post #652 seems to sort of prove there WAS no other contiguous and unbroken common border between the golf course and the HDC residential to the west that they could get that land exchange and additional three acres from other than via the once proposed and now built Club House Road and that old western boundary on the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm.

And I think the other most important thing this shows is something I've mentioned before but never really put it together. That is that we do not know what the delineation of that yet-to-be-built road was on the topo survey maps Wilson's committee actually used in routing and designing the holes of this golf course. We don't know because none of those topo survey maps they used and obviously designed on are apparently lost and very long ago. I think it took as a long time to finally realize that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was not the place to look for answers to our specific questions.

But the really interesting thing is it doesn't even matter that we don't have those topo survey maps they designed off of and on because we do have those factual incremental land quantities in and out of those two deeds and we do have to very exact things to measure off of-----Club House Road as built and that old Johnson Farm property line at the western side of the top of the "L" that is very much measurable on the old deeds. I think that will prove the acreage numbers and differences (the exchange for ALREADY PURCHASED adjoining land AND the purhase of three additonal acres for $7,500) and also tell us what the Francis Land Swap that solved the problems with the 15th green and 16th tee was all about!

The only thing we may never be able to see is what the entire delineation of that "yet-to-be-built" road was like from College all the way to Ardmore on those topo survey maps Wilson and committee used (need I remind you neither Macdonald/Whigam NOR HH BARKER were ever around during this entire time to use them?). But it seems to me that probably isn't very important anymore even though I have not completely given up hope that we will find one some day find one of those Wilson Committee working topo survey maps, and hopefully the one they took to the board in April and got approval to build with that adjoining land exchange for land ALREADY PURCHASE and the additional purchase of three acres for $7,500.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it took as a long time to finally realize that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was not the place to look for answers to our specific questions.

Tom,

Bingo.

We've all been chasing a snipe since the day David's paper was originally posted here.

No offense meant to David.  He inadvertedly made the exact same mistake that sucked the rest of us in.

I think the lesson I learned last night that led to my brainstorm is simply, never underestimate the inspirational power of a good bottle of St. Francis Old Vine Zinfandel. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

Bingo.

We've all been chasing a snipe since the day David's paper was originally posted here."


MikeC:

I think we should ALL take some time and really review WHY we went back and forth on that so-called "asset" (the Nov. 15, 1910 Proposed land plan) the way we did.

I mean I've known for years that Wilson and Committee were using topo survey maps when they routed and designed (at least during the ONLY time it is actually RECORDED they did route and design). I've mentioned them for years because of that Wilson letter to Russell Oakley.


We know they had then but we don't know when they first got them and used them but they most certainly were not that Nov. 15, 1910 Proposed land plan (I sure did realize there are no contour lines on that the first time I say it and it sure doesn't have those "lettered" setions Wilson mentioned to Oakley).

So we can never know what that not yet built road delineation looked like compared to that Nov. 15. 1910 plan. I still do wonder, though why that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan had a scale on it if things on it weren't to scale or even if some were and others weren't! 

I think the reason that "approximate road location" may not have been exact on even their working topo survey maps is because Horatio Gates Lloyd had put himself in position to move it at a moment's notice any time it became necessary between Dec, 1910 and July 1911.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I have a couple of other problems with this interpretation, now that you mention it;




First, just like the 1910 Land Plan, you can move that "approximate" western boundary north of Ardmore Avenue anywhere you like west of today's Golf House Road to come up to an exact 100 acres.   If it measures out today at 110, move it a smidgeon right, 90, move it a smidgeon left.   You're still on HDC land and therefore anything becomes plausible.

Secondly, the last and only mention of 100 acres is the July letter where it is stated that Connell propsed 100 acres or whatever would be required of land to Merion, for the course.   He clearly was NOT talking about some exact dimensions...he was estimating what it might take because let's not forget; the course Merion was moving from was all of 65 to 72 acres (I've seen both number), so 100 acres perhaps sounded a lot to them.

Apparently Barker thought it was enough...Macdonald and Whigham had their doubts of the overall property size for even a 6000 yard course.

Also, we know that Merion wanted their golf course to be convenient to the railroad.  This wasn't a secondary goal...it was primary.   Early accounts talked about the land they were looking at stretched between two railroad stops, one of them being up by College Avenue.  Your proposed land goes nowhere near that stop for the course.

In fact, that November 24th, 1910 Philadelphia Press article I quoted yesterday that told about the syndicate of Atterbury, Lloyd, Huston, Griscom, and Lesley having bought 338 acres of which 117 would be used for the golf course also stated;

"The Philadelphia and Western Railroad, a third rail fast trolley, is to have a station practically at each end of the course, affording exceptional transportation."

The bottom line is there is no underpinning factual reason for you to have chosen the land you just did.   You're just trying to find any reasonable spot that adds up to 100 acres that doesn't include the triangle out of the 338 acres that HDC owned at that time.  The fact that it's a sliding scale and can add up to anything you need depending how we move the left boundary just makes it more convenient.

[DMoriarty]

Bingo.

We've all been chasing a snipe since the day David's paper was originally posted here.

No offense meant to David.  He inadvertedly made the exact same mistake that sucked the rest of us in.

No, Mike I did not make the same mistake that sucked you guys in.    While it is entertaining to watch you guys segway away from your this is a complete outrage!!!!  That was an exact and legally legal document made by legally legal surveyors and good in court and if wrong would have caused major lawsuits . . . [/i] and TomPaul's how dare you doubt the words of H.G. Lloyd; that map is absolutely to scale and everything on it is exact and if H.G.Lloyd said it was 117 acres that it was exactly that; have you ever even stopped to consider just exactly who these men were . . . . Drexel . .  Rothchilds . . . your hyperbole is insulting . . . .      

And since that map doesn't suit your purposes you insist that we discard it completely?

No, Mike, I have have not made the same mistakes as you guys, nor am I now.

Meanwhile, as you two dance fancifully through a field of fantasy, facts are emerging, and the boundary of Haverford College is getting pushed further and further west, into the current 16th fairway.   That approximation of the corner on the 1910 map is turning out to be much less fanciful than you two thought.

Mike, according to TEPaul, there ought to be a survey stone in the middle of the College avenue at its intersection with Golf House Road.  If not there, then there ought to be a survey stone 381.11 feet down Golf House road on the golf course side of the road, next to the property line.   Be careful standing in the middle of College Avenue.

Bryan,

What I was alluding to last night is that MCC actually owned a thin strip of land all the way to College Avenue.  The owned from the middle of the intersection with College, all the way down the middle of Golf House Lane.    At the very top the strip was only 11 ft. wide; hand Haverford College's land started 11 ft. from the middle of College.      While the haverford College border stayed straight, MCC's Western border began to diverge only 230 ft from the center of College.  This is where the road began to curve.   

So the "triangle was longer and thinner than it appears on most maps, and the corner point is substantially into the current 16th fairway.    Interesting.

[Mike_Cirba]

And finally, before I go enjoy the weekend, if anyone has any doubts still about Hugh Wilson and friends because they were called the "Construction Committee" in some accounts, including Tillinghast's, here's two recent findings from Joe Bausch;

"It is possible that the writer may be permitted to speak of himself at this time without offense.  A recent ruling of the United States Golf Association apparently has deprived him, together with Walter Travis, of his own amateur standing.  It is a well-known fact that for some years I have practically made golf course construction a profession, and for many more years my articles have appeared in this newspaper and magazines.  Apparently the executive committee of the U.S.G.A. considers me a professional, and I wish to go on record now with the remark that I have absolutely no complaint." - A.W TIlinghast January 1917

"In the world of golf there is no more well-known figure than C. B. MacDonald as a constructor of courses." - Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger 1914


If I happen to get arrested this weekend on the 16th tee of Merion, please get Bryan Izatt to send bail money.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()