[Tom MacWood]

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

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

Further evidence of contact between Wilson and Macdonald before 2/1 is the letter date April 27. Wilson tells Oakley he is sending the results of chemical tests conducted by Patterson, Wylde & Co. In his 2/1 letter Wilson asked Piper if he would run chemical tests and Oakley responded it would be a waste of time. In the April 27 letter Wilson explains he asked Patterson Wylde to run the tests before asking Piper, and before he knew it was a waste of time. Like Piper, Patterson & Wylde were also involved at the NGLA.

[JESII]

Were Patterson & Wylde in Washington?

[Tom MacWood]

No, they were out of Boston.

[Mike_Cirba]

I blew this one up a bit so that it can be more easily read.

Interestingly, it clearly follows the early January membership letter as it talks about "experts", but it also talks about the difficulty in getting the land finally purchased.

If we also assume that it is correct about the Catherwood Estate adjoining course, or even Merion property, it certainly seems to indicate that nothing had been finalized, nor did the Francis Land Swap take place prior to this.

Do we have agreement on that?

[JESII]

I would bet it's more likely the writer was trying to fit Mr. Catherwood into an article for some reason because it talks about it being below College Ave...

What about this article makes you think the land acquisition was more complicated than previously thought?  Clearly there have always been hurdles to overcome.

No we do not have agreement that this article means anything...

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

What is the date of this most recent article?   

-- The article also mentions the McFadden Estate which was below College.
-- The article also mentions an option having been purchased in November.

Financial difficulties were mentioned in Jan 7. 1911 Inquirer article as well.


I'd like to see a copy of the May 1913 article re: other experts.   The transcription you posted still doesn't make sense.   Is there a reason you post all the other actual articles but only give us a transcrption of this one?


Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

What is the date of this most recent article?  

-- The article also mentions the McFadden Estate which was below College.
-- The article also mentions an option having been purchased in November.

Financial difficulties were mentioned in Jan 7. 1911 Inquirer article as well.


I'd like to see a copy of the May 1913 article re: other experts.   The transcription you posted still doesn't make sense.   Is there a reason you post all the other actual articles but only give us a transcrption of this one?


Thanks.

David,

This is the article that Bryan posted previously.   I just doubled the size to make it more readable.

Yes, the 117 acre option was clearly done in November...it just seems that there was a lot of confusion and conflicting information around what happened in December when the deed expresses that Lloyd purchased 161 acres outright and news articles talk about 13 acre options, lawn tennis, 130 acre golf course, etc..

The May 1913 article was copied from a fiche reader to paper copy at the Free Lbrary when I was with Bausch.   I don't think he copied it in any other form, or took a photo that day because it was only relevant to stuff on Cobb's Creek we already knew and not something fundamentally different.

I do wish you would trust that I copied it accurately, and double-checked that I did, but if it's a huge issue I'll see about getting it scanned.

[JESII]

No, they were out of Boston.

So it was not them CBM was referring to in June 1910...

[Mike_Cirba]

Could the land deal be possibly any more complicated?

Anyone want to speculate as to the Pennsylvania Railroad's connection to all of this as the article claims they were the seller?   How does HDC and/or PALCO fit in this mix?

Another article I posted prior talked about Lloyd's syndicate purchasing 338 acres;  among the primary members of that syndicate was named Mr. Atterbury of the PA railroad.

[JESII]

Mike,

I think the article is referring to MCC attempt to buy the old course from the railroad.

[DMoriarty]

Yes, the 117 acre option was clearly done in November...it just seems that there was a lot of confusion and conflicting information around what happened in December when the deed expresses that Lloyd purchased 161 acres outright and news articles talk about 13 acre options, lawn tennis, 130 acre golf course, etc..

I don't think the information necessarily conflicts.  We just have not figured it all out yet.   As I have said many times, when information conflicts it is more than likely that the reader has made an error, not the source material.

The May 1913 article was copied from a fiche reader to paper copy at the Free Lbrary when I was with Bausch.   I don't think he copied it in any other form, or took a photo that day because it was only relevant to stuff on Cobb's Creek we already knew and not something fundamentally different.

I do wish you would trust that I copied it accurately, and double-checked that I did, but if it's a huge issue I'll see about getting it scanned.

Trust that you copied it correctly?   Trust that you double checked?   Unless I misunderstand you, all you have is the hand-transcribed version from Joe Bausch.   Did you go back to the library and look at the microfiche?  If not, why did you claim that you have provided us the correct language? Or that you have double checked it?    You wouldn't possibly have the knowledge to claim the former and you couldn't have done the former?!

I don't think Joe would try anything underhanded like intentionally botching the transcription, but we all make mistakes.  Even Joe.

This is yet another example of why we need to rely on THE ACTUAL SOURCES rather than what someone claims they say!  

As for whether you get it scanned or not, that is up to you and Joe, but as it is it makes no sense as it has been represented.   Frankly, I doubt its usefulness even if it says what you think it says, but we can cross that bridge if and when you get it scanned and if it says what you want it so say.

Could the land deal be possibly any more complicated?

Anyone want to speculate as to the Pennsylvania Railroad's connection to all of this as the article claims they were the seller?   How does HDC and/or PALCO fit in this mix?

Another article I posted prior talked about Lloyd's syndicate purchasing 338 acres;  among the primary members of that syndicate was named Mr. Atterbury of the PA railroad.

As Jim points out, the first part of the article is referring the old course.   The 338 acres is referring to land purchased by HCD, which is the group the Lloyd group recapitalized.   Those parts make sense.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I think you're correct.

I should have termed my question, "can these articles be any more confusing?"

There was one other article that made the same error.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I have the paper reproduction from microfiche, not Joe Bausch..

Apparently Robert Lesley called a golf expert is troubling you but I think it's much more telling that Hugh Wilson is called a golf expert supposedly before any of his course designs were in play.

In any case, I had it in mind to get it scanned.  After the usual insults, you can look it up yourself as I told you the newspaper, the date, and the headline.

[DMoriarty]

All TEPaul's recent post does is reaffirm that we must take everything he tells us with a huge grain of salt, and that we all need THE SOURCE MATERIAL, not what TEPaul tells us the source material is.
__________________________

Bryan, you are interested in first principles, right?   All we know as a first principle is that Lloyd held title.   Going further is speculative on your part, especially given what Cuyler and other various men of Merion wrote about the status property.  Others might gladly make the logical leap that you suggest, but I cannot because it fails to adequately consider what we know.

Likewise, while it is far from a first principle, TEPaul has represented that M&W "approved" the plan and then the plan they approved went to board, and whatever TEPaul read Shivas said the same thing.   To speculate that this meant "liked" is beyond the scope of your outline, isn't it?     Why not just leave it as "approved" and then you and others can read it as they want?   Isn't the purpose of your exercise just to compile the facts?  I don't think you can honestly say for certain that "approved" meant only "liked" can you?    And even if you could, isn't this your deduction rather than a first principle?

As for what position CBM held with the club that sanctioned him to give sanction to the final routing plan, based on what I know about what was presented to the Board by Lesley in July 1910 and April 1911, it looks like Lesley and/or the Board were looking to CBM and Whigham to  direct them as to how to create a first class course. Wilson's committee seemed to have been reporting to CBM AND WHIGHAM, and then the board would basing their decisions on what CBM and WHIGHAM decided.  

After all, it does not seem that Wilson was even mentioned.  

[DMoriarty]

David,

I have the paper reproduction from microfiche, not Joe Bausch..

Apparently Robert Lesley called a golf expert is troubling you but I think it's much more telling that Hugh Wilson is called a golf expert supposedly before any of his course designs were in play.

In any case, I had it in mind to get it scanned.  After the usual insults, you can look it up yourself as I told you the newspaper, the date, and the headline.

Insults, Mike?   I don't understand.   I did not understand what you meant by Joe copying it, and I am not sure I do yet.  From your description I assumed it was hand transcribed, and I asked if so how you could have double checked it?

If you have the paper copy what is the problem with posting it?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

As far as the supposed January 11, 1911 Construction Committee.  I do not recall ever seeing reference to any such meeting.   Does anyone else recall any reference to any such meeting?

My understanding is that they were appointed in early 1911, and the first record of them doing anything is the February 1, 1911 letter to Piper, and the activities described therein (communicating with CBM, discussing communicating with CBM, deciding his advice was of great value, writing Piper immediately.)

[JESII]

I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only, but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board?   In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

You've  missed nothing

When you don't like the evidence, you try to get most of it ruled inadmissable.

[DMoriarty]

I missed the section where we moved to First Principle Only. . .

Jim,  

Bryan stated a while back (and a number of times I think) that his time line was trying to work with first principles, which I take to mean axioms or facts which required no deduction or additional proof;  In other words, the basic, undisputed building blocks of arguments to come.   A good example of a first principle would be that, according to the x deed, Lloyd took title to y property on z date.    

I thought the purpose of his time line was to list out all the reasonably undipsutable facts, or first principles, off of which all these other arguments are being developed.  Maybe I am wrong about this, but that was my understanding of his time line.   (Aside:  While generally a good idea, there are some big problems with Bryan's fact based time line approach in this instance, but that is outside the scope of your question.)

. . . but David tell me are you saying Wilson's committee required CBM's approval in April 1911 before taking the plan to their board?   In other words, if CBM were overseas for the month, do you think they would have waited until he returned before proceeding?

First, to clarify, I was explaining to Bryan what sanction I thought M&W had from Merion that gave M&W the authority to sanction to the plan before it went to the board.   My answer was NOT meant to be a first principle or statement of fact, but was my understanding based on the facts we know from the Board Meetings.  My understanding may change if we ever get to see the parts of the record that are currently being hidden from us.  

Second, to try and address your questions:
1.  I don't think Wilson's Committee took the plan to the MCC board.   I think Lesley's Committee did.   TEPaul assumes that Lesley was speaking on behalf of Wilson's Committee, but I have seen no facts supporting TEPaul's assumption.

2.  Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I think that it was very important to Lesley and the MCC's Board of Governor's that M&W had been involved in the planning process (at NGLA) and that M&W had already sanctioned the plan being presented, and that they stated that it would produce a first class course with some of the best inland holes in the country.  

3.  Judging from what we have been told that Lesley told the Board, I do not think that Lesley or the Board were much if at all concerned with what Wilson and his Committee thought of the layout plan, or with what, if anything they had contributed to it.

4.  I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan.  

5.  As for whether Merion would have waited for M&W to approve of the plan, who says they did not wait as it is?   In other words, I think they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March, and then they waited until M&W could come back down about three weeks later to go over the land (again) and over the various layout options, and to finally determine the routing plan.  

6.  What would they have done if they could not get CBM?   I don't know, but my guess is that they would have gotten someone else, but they probably would not have been that happy about it, as they clearly wanted nothing but the best.  

7.   I think the choice of the word "approved" is significant because it provided insight as to how important Lesley and the Committee thought M&W's opinion was.  

Hope this helps.

[DMoriarty]

What perplexes me about this whole discussion is what do we have left to discuss?  

Even if we forget that M&W went over the land in June 1910 and that the land was purchased based largely on their recommendation; even if we forget that there are facts evidencing that there was a plan before Wilson was ever involved; even if we set aside everything that happened or may have happened before Wilson was appointed; the evidence seems overwhelming that M&W were calling the shots with regard to the layout plan for Merion East.

We know that:
1.  The focus of the NGLA meetings was "the lay out of Merion East."
2.  Wilson wrote that at NGLA M&W taught them how to incorporate the principles of the great holes into the natural features at Merion East.
3.  M&W approved the final routing plan for Merion East before it went to Merion's Board for final approval.
4.  The Meeting Minutes (what we know of them) create the strong impression that Merion's Board based their final approval on M&W's prior involvement in determining the layout and M&W's approval of the layout plan as presented to the Board.

Even if these were the only facts available to us, don't they create a pretty strong case that M&W were calling the shots when it came to the layout plan of Merion East?  

[Peter Pallotta]

David - re your point #5 from your second to last post: you wrote that "...they waited to proceed until M&W could teach Wilson and his Committee how to lay out the course in early to mid March...".

This I really don't understand. WHOMEVER you think was being referred to in the sentence from the minutes about "laying out many different courses on the new ground,"  I assume you agree that this laying out happened BEFORE the Committee went to visit Macdonald at NGLA. I have granted the possibility that in their first visit to Merion, and then later at NGLA, Macdonald could've suggested possible locations for holes based on the principles of the great British holes (in fact, I think the minutes also say that during their visit, Macdonald spent the 2nd day walking the Committee around NGLA showing them how he'd done it there) -- but that seems to me a far cry from teaching the committee how to lay out the course, and even more so from routing an 18 hole golf course. Do you really mean exactly what you wrote, i.e. that during their visit to NGLA in March, Macdonald taught the Committee how to lay out Merion? IF so, how do you TEACH someone to lay out a course?


(By the way, I just noticed that, after my last post on this thread, you sort of insinuated that I had intentionally left out a portion of the reference in the minutes about "laying out many different courses" -- a reference that everyone had already seen and debated a dozen times.  Please, David - stop doing that, will you? In your timeline prior to my post, you'd left out that same reference completely, and yet I dealt with it straight-up, without the b.s.)

Peter       

[JESII]

Interestingly, I agree with the basic points (including what you just laid out David) each side makes but get disagreement from both when I offer a thought...

The problem with all of this is the desired degree of final attribution. That's it!

Both sides have dug in so deep that a reasonable understanding of the other's thought process is impossible...and frankly both sides seem to make rationalizations that could only come from a strong desire to shift the balance fully one way or another.



David,

I believe CBM was incredibly helpful in a variety of ways during his June visit in terms of procuring the land in a manner most efficient for all involved as well as identifying the key attributes of the property to be used for golf. This, on its own, warrants mention of "providing the greatest assistance...". If he were in consistent communication with the Merion folks for the next 7 months we would know about it.

That they documented two very detailed sessions in March/April 1911 provides even more support for him playing a part, a significant part, in the creation of Merion East. This has been acknowledged for 99 years...

What about the fact that they already identified the land they ideally wanted, and had a blessing in hand from another very prominent GCA of that land before CBM ever showed up? Does this minimize CBM's "approval" of it? Does it really mean they made the purchase recommendation largely on his blessing? Or is it safer to assume they were using his endorsement for the land to their best?
 
What about the fact that Francis came up with the land swap enabling the last five holes we currently know? Regardless of when he did it, we better take his word for having done it. Without them, Merion is not the same. How can you assign much in the way of routing credit to CBM when 5 holes were most assuredly not his doing at all?

Re: your point #4 in the first of the recent numbered posts..."4.  I do not think it was a coincidence that a plan was not presented to MCC's Board until shortly after M&W returned to Merion, went over the land (again) and over the various versions, and sanctioned the final routing plan."    Do you, therefore, think they had a plan to present to CBM/The Board much earlier then if it was not a coincidence that they waited to present it?

[JC Jones]

What perplexes me about this whole discussion is what do we have left to discuss? 

I've felt this way for 80 pages now.....

[TEPaul]

"I've felt this way for 80 pages now....."


So have I, JC. On some reflection I've wondered why I participated as I did and I think I regret it. I don't expect that to happen again with me. Frankly I've been preplexed about what is left to discuss on this subject of Merion and Macdonald for about six and a half years now since Tom MacWood started this subject with a thread entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion" that is on about page 140 now. This whole thing could have ended there frankly with the single exception of the mistake Merion's last two history books made about when Wilson went abroad.

I do have what may be a great idea to bring this whole Macdonald and Merion issue to a close once and for all on this website. I would suggest that this thread that is certainly the longest in the history of GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com be brought to a close with the agreement of all its participants (or the site's two administrators) and that a new thread be started with the title "What mistakes did Merion's two latest history books make regarding Merion East's architectural history?"

I'm extremely familiar with the details of what those two Desmond Tolhurst history books say and I believe any participants on this website can have easy access to those two history books and what they say. Both books seem to treat Macdonald's contribution to Merion East early on appropriately given the length of those two books and the extent they treated and reported Merion's architectural history.

If anyone on here feels that something is amiss or lacking in how those Merion history books treated Macdonald's contributions, then I guarantee that Wayne Morrison and I, at least, will definitely note some consensus on here of what is lacking and recommend to Merion that in a future history book it be addressed in some manner, at least. I also guarantee that preceding another history book any factual evidence that has been found since the last Tolhurst Merion history book (2005) be reported to and included in Merion's historical archives (which are pretty much state of the art, by the way).

That would certainly include the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912 and probably not in 1910 (that apparent mistake is both understandable, explainable and actually somewhat humorous in how it was reported in one Tolhurst history book) and it would also include these MCC board meeting minutes, Cuylers letters et al and the Wilson report to the board in April 1911 that were apparently never considered by Merion's history writers in the last half century because they had been residing unseen in the attic of MCC (another club since 1942) for very close to a century now.

I know Merion and its members and administrators of the last thirty years or so well and I know they care so much about their history and that it be both reported accurately and comprehensively. Merion is not a club that is shy or reserved about their club and its history and they are most definitely not trying to hide anything from anyone or anything legitimate anyone may find about their history. As most know the club has perhaps the most impressive USGA tournament record in American golf history and it is soon to be added to by two impressive USGA tournaments in its immediate pipeline---eg the upcoming 2009 Walker Cup and the 2013 US Open.


I cannot think of a better resolution for both the passionate architectural particpants on Golfclubatlas.com AND Merion Golf Club!

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't know about anything much but I do know that I find it incomprehensible that anyone could piss off Peter Pallotta.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()