[Patrick_Mucci]

1 - Reasons for Land Swap - I wasn't actually putting forward a theory of why the land swap occurred, my point was to show that there might have been a number of reasons for the swap and therefore the fact of the swap (and timing) didn't in itself prove anything with regards to a particular possible reason.

I think you have to elaborate on the need for a swap if in fact the land prior to the swap was more than adequate to accomodate an 18 hole golf course.  Remember, Macdonald recommened getting addtional land near the clubhouse to get a more perfect golf course.
And, while the golf course at Merion is exception, without the use of crossovers, the land might not have yielded such an exceptional course.

2 - Routing - the point I was trying to make here was that if the routing has already been done then why all the need for subsequent routings being doen after the visit to NGLA.

One possibility is because the prior routing was "imperfect" or "incomplete"

Certainly Patrick I'm not saying that a routing couldn't have been done prior to the land swap but if it was it would appear that it was later discarded, no ?

Not necessarily.
Remnants or the better part of the routing might have been retained

In order to commit to the land you just need to be happy that you can achieve what you want on it which is why I asked the question of whether you actually needed to do a routing to know that you could get what you wanted.

You can't ask that question in a vacuum.
You have to ask it in the context of the specific land in this particular case.
My reference to the saving nature of the crossovers is germane to the question/s you raised/d

Again interested to hear from any professionals out there.

3 - Timeline - I think I get the point you are looking to make with your bank anology. Again it comes down to whether you are convinced that a full routing was done for the land deal as to whether or not you credit Barker, Wilson or Macdonald.

I''m not crediting anybody.
I'm more interested in the timing of the events, specifically, the acquisition of the land and Wilson's date of involvement.
We now know that the club purchased the land between July, 1910 and November 15,1910.

4 - Routing on 100 plus acres - I would suggest that back then 120 acres was a reasonable sized area to build a course.

Not necessarily.
It would depend upon the properties, topography and configuration of the land.

Any architect is going to look for opportunities and constraints for his design. Any constraints may mean additional land ie bottleneck of land, quarry etc.

Do you need to actually do a routing to prove that you may need additional land ?

I think you do when you have a unique property.

I take your point that they maybe didn't have a topo plan then but they did have the opportunity to walk the land any time they liked and lay out stakes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Before spending a lot more time typing, please go to the Timeline thread and read pages 40-41 in entirety and things should become clear.  Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I typed the previous post in a bit of a hurry so let me summarise where I think we are.
 
You contend that the land swap shows that there must have been a routing done as that showed the need for the land swap.

Agreed

My contention for what its worth is that is one possible reason for the land swap but it is not necessarily the only reason or neccessarily even the most likely one. You can argue that it is the most likley reason but to my mind you can't say a unsatisfactory routing was definitely the reason for the land swap without supporting documentation. I suspect we are just going to have to agree to differ on that point.

Agreed

Getting back to my real interest as to who actually did the design for Merion, would you agree that it doesn't really matter whether there was a routing done which pre-emptied the land swap as the course was re-routed after this time ?

It does matter in terms of authorship.
See my bank robbery post.

[JESII]

Mike,

Why would we need to wait for Tom to return from Hawaii to post your "solution"? You have obviously gained a clear understanding of the sequence of events and are in total agreement with Tom...he is as incapable as I am with regards to posting pictures. I think you could very easily summarize the entire 13 month endeavor from early June 1910 through late July 1911...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I'd be happy to create a complete timeline of what I can document and illustrate through that period but did think Tom getting thatsurveyors study done for independent validation and inclusion would be most helpful.

I just don't want to engage in another lengthy word parsing game which is Part Two now that the Land Swap theory in David's essay has been disproven..

I want to have independent verification of the metes and bounds first, before anyone accuses us of hiding something or not coming clean again.

[JESII]

I thought I read a post by Bryan saying he had the metes and bounds and was trying to sort them out...I assumed Tom had finally given them to him until I read Tom's response; whish was that depending on what Bryan came up with he might give his info to a surveyor...I would think it much more helpful to keep this converation moving now that we are getting close to the finish line.

Maybe I am alone, but I cannot see how the 117 acres you have in black is all they site committee would have been considering in June/July of 1910...when the lower section looks hardly usable for 11 holes...but that's the point isn't it, these recent "facts" have "proven the case".

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

That's all they owned when they made that assessment and the Site Committee recommended purchase to the board.

It was 117 of the 338 acres owned by HDC, just as its spelled out in the July 1 letter to the board.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

Of course not!

You clearly figured the timing and events of the Land Swap out a few weeks back.

You just need to learn how to post pics and diagrams on here so the rest of us catch on quicker!  . D)"



Michael Frobusher Cirba:


That is not the Immaculate realization/Revelation I'm talking about. I'm talking about how I have virtually PROVEN in post #292 that it wasn't even the Ardmore site that Macdonald and Whigam were on that day in June 1910; it was the alternative site the MCC Search Committee with Lesley as its chairman that MCC had been looking at along with the Ardmore site (and which Lesley apparently purchased 130 acres of in 1909), and that is why we must now CONCLUDE and CONTEND (hopefully in an "In My Opinion" piece essay on here) that today's Philadelphia Country Club's routing and design was from Macdonald and Whigam and THEY are the driving force behind its architecture and certainly not that little tranplanted Milton, Massachussets  Schmooo William Flynn!


Matter of fact, today's MCC historian tells me he remembers seeing a letter from Lloyd to Lesley somewhere around the middle of 1910, that, among other things, says something to this effect;

"Robert;

Do you really want to compete with ME and what I'm doing at the Ardmore site with that alernative site overlooking the Schuykill River where you've bought land? If you do want to compete with me I think you know damn good and well that via my financial power and influence I will bury your skinny and sorry little light-hitting ass; I'll break you totally so you can no longer show your face in polite society and I might even sell your wife and children into slavery on the Barbary Coast?

Your fellow MCC member, Search Committee fellow member and your dear friend,

Horatio"

[DMoriarty]

The sad thing is that this latest fantasy of Tom's has about as much support as his current working theories.

[TEPaul]

"The sad thing is that this latest fantasy of Tom's has about as much support as his current working theories."


I would most certainly hope so unless someone has no idea of the difference between satire and accurate historical facts from the records of MCC and Merion G.C. as the man who made the statement above apparently doesn't!   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()