[Tony_Chapman]

I'm going to continue with the dumb questions.

Mike -- Do you think the 15th was routed along Golf House Road, or was Golf House Road placed next to the 15th and follows the fairway? Just curious as to your thoughts?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

No dumb questions here.

Once you strip away the emotional acrimony around this stuff, it's truly the best mystery since Sherlock Holmes, but I think we're getting close...very close, in fact.

I think there was a boundary drawn along what is today #15 delineated as "approximate location of road" on the November 1910, Land Plan.

I think once they started out there actually trying to route and build holes, they realized the area was not wide enough, because of the decision to create an alternate fairway around the quarry on 16...that's my speculation.

I believe that created the need to swap land along that Golf House Road boundary..widening on the top for 15 and narrowing down below where they didn't need it across from the 14th tee.

Once that was all figured out, they built and paved the road.

[Tony_Chapman]

Tony,

No dumb questions here.

Once you strip away the emotional acrimony around this stuff, it's truly the best mystery since Sherlock Holmes, but I think we're getting close...very close, in fact.

I think there was a boundary drawn along what is today #15 delineated as "approximate location of road" on the November 1910, Land Plan.

I think once they started out there actually trying to route and build holes, they realized the area was not wide enough, because of the decision to create an alternate fairway around the quarry on 16...that's my speculation.

I believe that created the need to swap land along that Golf House Road boundary..widening on the top for 15 and narrowing down below where they didn't need it across from the 14th tee.

Once that was all figured out, they built and paved the road.

Mike -- Thanks. But, didn't the boys at Merion control the land where the road was going to be? And, if so why not just route the damn 15th and 16th however they wanted to and put the road in wherever it fit? If I've been following this thread correctly, I think most think that there were five routings in play BEFORE the road was built (though they knew approximately where they wanted it). If they knew they weren't going to put golf course all the way to College Ave. they would have known they'd have some "leeway" to get the road bending back to the left (or right whichever way you put it) and still have it start directly across from Turnbridge Rd. No?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

They had to keep it within the 117 acres they had optioned for purchase for the golf course out of the 338 acres in total.  221 acres were already targeted for real estate.

Hope that helps!

[John_Cullum]

Curious. Does the road follow some natural contour or stream bed or anything? Or is just curved for curve's sake?

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

All of the roads in the development were curved as it was apparently the rich mans aesthetic at the time.

If you notice the one on the land plan it's virtually equidistant curvilinear.

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

You or anyone else can also try to come up with the 120 acres required by Merion as of July 1910.

Any ideas?

[Mike Hendren]

If not this has adverse possession or prescriptive easement written all over it.

Mike

So do many of the wild drives I hit, but that never stopped me...

Yes, many of your drives are indeed notorious, adverse and prolonged.

Great chatting with you Sunday evening.

Bogey

[Tony_Chapman]

Tony,

They had to keep it within the 117 acres they had optioned for purchase for the golf course out of the 338 acres in total.  221 acres were already targeted for real estate.

Hope that helps!

Duh. Thanks. I assume we've discussed why they picked 117 acres, that seems like a silly number. And, quite frankly, a bit tight for a world-class golf course don't you think. Why not 150 or 175 and after they got it routed how they wanted they could give back the rest for real estate? Sorry if I've taken this think way off track. If you'd rather pursue offline I understand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

I agree, with 300+ acres at their disposal, selecting only 117 had to be purpose specific.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

I agree, with 300+ acres at their disposal, selecting only 117 had to be purpose specific.

Patrick,

Guess what?

It was not only purpose specific, it was site specific.

The northern and southern sections of what we know today as the "L" that makes up the predominant shape of the property and the bulk of the golf course....were the northern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, along with all of their historic boundaries, except for the northwestern part, where it was determined to build real estate on the other side of an "approximate" boundary delineated by a road.

And Guess what?

They were 117 acres.

And Guess what else?

If we add the 3 acres of Railroad Land that Macdonald and Whigham recommended they buy that were right next to the clubhouse..

Amazingly...

we get to the 120 acre "requirement" that the Merion Site Committee recommended to the Board that would be necessary for the golf course on July 1, 1910.


Now, since you are so unbiased, impartial, and just seeking the true story here.

Why don't you go back to David and ask him what 120 acres he thinks the July 1, 1910 letter was talking about?

Because, what he outlined for us...as it turns out...adds up to 131.5 acres. 


Tony,

In 1910, 117 acres was a pretty significant size for a golf course.

Merion's former course occupied 102 acres.

Macdonald thought he'd need 110 acres to build NGLA and thought it should be about 6,000 yards...in fact, when it first opened it was 6,100 yards.

Also, because there was a land deal involved, every acre used for golf course meant one less acre for someone to profit in a real estate deal.

Don't forget...most people couldn't drive further than about 220 yards at the time.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

You like graphics so here is the 1908 map which I believe shows what was offered and what they ended up with.  It is obviously not meant to be exact.



1. The Purple line represents the border of the land that HDC either owned or had an option on at the time they made their offer to MCC (excluding the land off the map to the north)
2. The Blue line represents the border of what I believe were the approx 100 acres that were originally offered.
3. Together, the Red and Green lines represent the borders of what was ultimately purchased by MCC.
   3.a.  The Red lines represents the portions of the border that differed from what was offered.
   3.b.  The Green lines represent the portions of the border that followed what was originally offered.

As you can see, they did NOT follow what was originally offered:

1.   Francis noted that they did not need land west of the present course so they didn't purchase it.
2.   Francis noted that they did need the 130 x 190 yard parcel west of Haverford College so they expanded their purchase up there.   
3.   M&W noted that MCC should purchase the land behind the clubhouse to use in the golf course so the secured that by lease.
4.   HDC owned or had an option on plenty of land West of the current course, but according to Francis they didn't have interest in the land west of the current golf course.  HHB,  M&W, someone else, or some combination added the Dallas Estate which was great. 

These are some of the changes to the borders made to suit the golf course.   I am not even sure why this is arguable.

Despite David's ubiquitous claim that this is "obviously not meant to be exact", it's clear he wants everyone to believe it's exact.

The area in blue...which he claims is the mysterious "100 acres" offered by Connell has two problems.

1) Connell never offered 100 acres.   He offered whatever would be required for the golf course and the EXACT SAME MERION SITE COMMITTEE REPORT SAYS THAT MERION REQUIRES 120 ACREs.

2) The area in blue is 108.5 acres, which might seem like a slight difference, except for the fact that David is purposefully excluding the northern part of the Johnson property, which by definition also purposefully excludes the "triangle" of land up there that he claims was the land swapped by Francis, because if he concedes that land up to College Avenue was considered from the very beginning then he can no longer place the "Francis Land Swap" in a timeline that would exclude Hugh Wilson's involvement.

The fact is, the land David laid out here as being part of the original "117 or 120 acres", is actually over 130 acres.

I think he needs to explain where that boundary line on the Johnson Farm actually should have been, and what evidence he has to support his demarcation.

[Bryan Izatt]

From a few pages ago, Mike following up on a passage in David's essay,

Here's the November 4th, 1910 Philadelphia Inquirer Story that spells out the details of the Dallas Estate purchase by James A. Freeman for 25K, compliments of Joe Bausch.

It seems Mr. Freeman got the land for a bit of a steal, at just under $1200 an acre.   The adjoining land of the Johnson Farm had recently been sold to Connell's group for $1500 an acre.





Here's the article from August 11th, 1910, when Freeman first optioned the Dallas Estate Property. 

It's interesting how the article mentions the only land that HDC really owned at even that late date, the 140 acre Johson Farm.

The rest of their holdings were all optioned, almost certainly with contingencies.




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

This is all very strange since there is a recorded Indenture, dated October 31, 1910 where one James P. Rothwell Junior purchases the Dallas Estate from Mary Dallas, William J. Dallas and James G. Francis, as executrix and executors for the deceased David Dallas.  The purchase price was $21,020.   Interestingly the Indenture was both witnessed and Notarized by one E. W. Nicholson. 

In an Indenture dated November 9, 1910, Rothwell flips the Dallas Estate to HDC for $1. 

In an Indenture dated December 16, 1910, HDC (E.W. Nicholson) flips the Dallas Estate back to Rothwell for $1, presumably on it's way to Lloyd.

Rothwell seems to be a middleman on many of the HDC/Merion land transfers.

No mention of Freeman.  How could he have bought it, if Rothwell bought it directly from the Executors of the Dallas Estate?  Another erroneous newspaper article?  Why would the Executors sell it to Rothwell for $21,020, if Freeman was offering $25,000?  Was E.W. Nicholson close to the Dallases?  Is James G. Francis related to Richard Francis?  More layers to the mystery.

[Bryan Izatt]

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

We also KNOW based on the timeline that Macdonald visited and wrote his letter of June 29th, 1910, that was most assuredly NOTHING close to a routing of the golf course EXISTED, yet on July 1, 1910, the Merion Site Committee STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF MERION that they move forward swiftly to aquire the 120 acres available at that time for the golf course, which at that time included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.

Mike, I've read the 43 pages and counting, and apart from speculation about what was included in the 120 acres, I don't recall that there is any written evidence that it included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.  You may have deduced that through your logic, but that doesn't mean it should be stated as fact.  You, Tom and David are all prone to deducing things and then saying them often enough that you accept them as fact, when they're not.

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm sorry...I find that other thread awfully distasteful.

Hope you guys don't mind me picking up the discussion back over here?

For the 2005 US Amateur program, author Gary Galyean in the lead story titled "Merion Golf Club - The Creation of a Legacy" wrote;

"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association.   Joining Mr. Griscom in that organization's endeavors were Charles Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson, and Wilson's younger brother Hugh."


Does anyone know the source of that information?   Was that info also in the Tolhurst book? 

Tom Paul wrote earlier that based on the minutes, there was really no mention of the creation of a "Construction Committee", and speculated whether this was either an ad hoc committee, or perhaps a standing committee.

I'm finding myself wondering if the focus on the minutes to date have been on the period 1910-12 or so, and perhaps something happened earlier?   

Also class...today's homework assignment...

Knowing what we all know now about the sequence of the land purchases, etc., what do you now think of this November 15, 1910 Land Plan, which is one of the only pieces of physical evidence we have.




How confident are we in what it represents?

While it was shown to be not to scale, does anyone recall what it measured to in terms of acreage?   Can anyone tell us?

Remember, this is supposed to represent the exact land purchase in a bid to the membership, after the land for the course had been "secured"...it would later be bought outright December 19, 1910 by HG Lloyd and transferred to MCC in July 1911.

So, what do you think this shows us?   Anyone....? 

Mike,

After looking at deeds and metes and bounds for days, I have a different perspective on the land plan than I did a week or two ago.  As you may recall, I called in to question the accuracy of the land plan for measuring acreages and distances.  What I've learned from the deeds is that Pugh and Hubbard were busy surveyors in that neighbourhood.  So, I'm coming to the conclusion that the land plan was drawn to scale, why else would an engineer/surveyor provide a scale, and think of the legal and professional ramifications if someone gets pissed off after buying land based on a fraudulent or misleading plan.  The problem with the plan for measuring is, as David and Jeff have both asserted - it's distorted in the picture. 

Jeff, I don't think it's worth your effort to put it into CAD - there is no way to accurately correct the distortions.  The only thing on it that isn't available accurately measurable from other sources is the "approximate" road location.  For the rest, I will shortly (if I don't fall asleep) post the metes and bounds on the current aerial.  That is reasonably accurately measurable.

As for what the Land Plan tells us - the Dallas Estate was in the plan and was before the land was actually purchased; they wanted to maximize the frontage on the course, so GHR was going to be curvilinear, but they weren't sure exactly where it was going to go; the Francis area for 15 and 16 was on the plan, whether or not it exactly measuring 130 x 190; the RR land was not part of the golf course in November 1910; and, the road got built fast since it was approximate in November 1910 but was surveyed as built in July 1911.
 

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike

I won't tell you my opinion of what that drawing represents, but I will tell you what it is not. It is not a survey from which a property description for a deed will be drafted.

I will reiterate that I see all of these exercises about guestimating acreage and timing of land swaps to be a total waste of time. Merion's land was acquired by deeds. They are recorded in a courthouse, and each deed describes the exact property acquired and has a date on it. I fully expect each deed also refers to some matter of survey that is also of public record.

If you want to know when Merion (or anybody else) acquired a piece of real property, just go look. It is all right there for you

John,

I agree.  I've now got the deeds and surveys and will report the actual measurements shortly.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

See my ammended post above.  Its just as logical, absent documentation, that if the Dallas Estate was under consideration in June 1910 (as TePaul said once) that it was Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate, minus a parcel from the Johnson Farm to keep at 120 Acres.

Was that the land by Haverford, or a general narroring of the north leg of the L using Golf House Road?

The rectangle of the Johnson Farm coming straight west from the Haverford College South Boundary to the original Johnson Farm property line, up to College Road, and then back over to Haverford College Boundary is about 21 acres, or the same size as the Dallas Estate.  You have that marked as DM's 100 acre property in a blue line.  I am suggesting that they kept that and added the Dallas Estate to make up the 120 acres.

That is the basis of DM's theory on the land swap - that the north border of the working topos was at Haverford College and the "extra" 3 acres was the triangle that shows up on the Nov 1910 map.  I can follow his logic tree completely, even if I am not 100% sure its correct because of other facts.  That seems kind of odd, doesn't it?

Jeff,

From metes in the deeds, the rectangle at the top is 10.5 acres, not 21 acres.  That is an accurately surveyed amount, based on dimensions measured to one one hundredth of a foot by the surveyor Samuel M. Garrigues.  So, a 21 acre trade off with the Dallas property is not going to fly.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

On the 1900 RR map I'm getting about 420ft by 980ft for that northern rectangle.

What are you seeing?

To be exact, it's 983.48' x 466.95'.

[Bryan Izatt]

The first of the output from the Deeds.  Here are the Johnson Farm (in earthy brown), the Dallas Estate (in deep purple), the July 19, 1911 MCCGA property, (in orange), and the RR Land (in light purple).

The boundaries do not exactly overlap because: I displaced them slightly so they'd show; the surveys were done at different times and the accuracy of the more recent ones is better than the earlier ones; it's not always easy to accurately pick out the starting point in the deed; and, my technology isn't capable of measuring to hundredths of feet or tenths of seconds in headings.  After traversing the whole boundary I missed the starting point by around 10 feet or so.  Pretty accurate, I think; but no doubt Tom will want to pay his surveyor to be more accurate. 

I'll put out more about the acreages of the various areas tomorrow, and hopefully the December 1910 deed for the 117 acres to Lloyd et ux.

[Mike_Cirba]

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

We also KNOW based on the timeline that Macdonald visited and wrote his letter of June 29th, 1910, that was most assuredly NOTHING close to a routing of the golf course EXISTED, yet on July 1, 1910, the Merion Site Committee STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF MERION that they move forward swiftly to aquire the 120 acres available at that time for the golf course, which at that time included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.

Mike, I've read the 43 pages and counting, and apart from speculation about what was included in the 120 acres, I don't recall that there is any written evidence that it included the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm, and the 3 acres of railroad land.  You may have deduced that through your logic, but that doesn't mean it should be stated as fact.  You, Tom and David are all prone to deducing things and then saying them often enough that you accept them as fact, when they're not.

Bryan,

Thanks again for your terrific work here.   

And you're correct.

My statement that the "required 120 acres" (strongly recommended for purchase in the July 1, 1910 Site Committee Report to the Board) IS the northeastern and southern sections of the Johnson Farm plus the Railroad Land is pure speculative deduction, based strictly on the land that HDC had available under option or ownership at that time to sell to Merion, as well as the vast number of historic boundaries of the Johnson Farm on all sides but the western edge that were maintained in the final purchase.

As your other very valuable and interesting research points out, (I believe Nicholson was Connell's partner), the Dallas Estate wasn't optioned until some months after then so I find it difficult to reconcile how that would have been part of a recommended purchase in July 1910 the Site Committee was  hurriedly pushing the Board to approve?

In your measures, did the Johnson Farm sections come out to 117 acres as you originally believed?  If so, the addition of the Railroad Land that M&W recommended they purchase would come out somewhat neatly to 120 acres, which seems either wildly coincidental or the correct answer.

In any case, let's assume David is correct and the 120 acres bounds was somewhere else than the Johnson Farm and Railroad land.   Where would that logical boundary be?   Where is the evidence in either the historical bounds or the purchased bounds that shows some logical place for the mystical 100 acres to make that theory fit reality?

In retrospect, he seems to have simply placed his boundary to include EVERYTHING BUT THE TRIANGLE to hang onto the theory that the triangle was the land cited in the Francis Swap, and therefore done before Hugh Wilson was involved, but we now know that theoretical demarcation just below the triangle land was a wish and a prayer that turned out to be inaccurate.

In any case, I'll be interested to see what the rest of your work unearths and thank you again for your objectivity and patience.


p.s.   It also seems clear that the western tongue of the southern section of the Johnson Farm did have enough width to include two generously wide holes if needed, as there was some earlier speculation that it may have been too narrow.   Ditto the northern section up beyond 15/16, so neither area on the face of it would have been obviously unfit for golf.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Of the 10.5 acres in that northern rectangle, how much of that acreage did they eventually use for 15 + 16 in the "triangle"?  Thanks!

I guess the more fundamental question though, is simply this;

Pray tell, what is the acreage west of Golf House Road to the original northwestern border of the Johnson Farm??


And, it seems from what you've said that the road in this 1911 photo/painting? is indeed Golf House Road?

I know Jim Sullivan was confused when I posted it before, but Jim...imagine you're standing on the rise of the 14th fairway looking slightly towards the 18th green, and recall that the old 10th green was about where the "turning bunker" is today on #1.   

If it's what I'm thiking, the road would have cut back "out" to the right of the picture before reaching that section of the 10th green/original 1st hole. 

I'm really not sure...I'd have to go out there and have a look because that area is so treed today it's tough to tell what it might have looked like barren.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

The painting depicts a road to the east of the 10th green in 1911.  The July 1911 survey places GHR to the west of the 10th green.  So, I don't think that that is GHR depicted in the painting.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here are the acreages as I calculate them based on the metes and bouunds from the deeds and the map below.

Area RE:       21.1 acres        the real estate part of the Johnson Farm, north of Ardmore, West of GHR

Area JW:      19.8 acres         the area west of GHR to the western boundary of the Johnson Farm

Merion:       120.4 acres        the course land on July 26,1911

Total:          161.3 acres       

The total should be 161.157 acres and the Merion portion 120.01.  The error in my measurements are thus around 0.3% or less.

Other areas of interest:

Area F:        4.8 acres           the Francis triangle

Area D:        21.2 acres         the Dallas Estate (error almost 1%)

Area JN:       10.5 acres         the northern rectangle of the Johnson Farm including Area F


I would note that Area F, although described as a "triangle" on here, is closer in shape to a rectangle in July 26, 1911.  Francis described it as 130 yards by 190 yards, but did not describe a shape.  The area of a rectangle 130 x190 is 5.1 acres, not very far off the area of the Francis "triangle".  The triangle shape is more pronounced in the November 15, 1910 land plan, but I'd estimate the area as being about the same as the July 26, 1911 "triangle".

I would also note that Tom's mathematical machinations were predicated on Area RE being 23 acres.  It is really 21.1 acres.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Thanks again!

Quick question...

If JN is 10.5 and the triangle is 4.8, shoiuldnt the difference between RE at 21.1 and JW at 19.8 reflect as large a difference?

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Scratch that last question...I gotcha now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()