[Mike Cirba]

TNac,

It's very simple.

The one-day wonder foreign golf pros had left a trail of dreck in their midst,and once amateurs who put ins some time like Travis, CBM, and Fownes proved you could roll your own and do it better, then Merion's approach makes sense and is proven correct by events.

[JESII]

Because Tom, they mentioned everyone else involved...

[Tom MacWood]

TNac,

It's very simple.

The one-day wonder foreign golf pros had left a trail of dreck in their midst,and once amateurs who put ins some time like Travis, CBM, and Fownes proved you could roll your own and do it better, then Merion's approach makes sense and is proven correct by events.

Barker had very good success with that formula. So did Mackenzie in Australia (and elsewhere), Alison in Japan, Hothkin in South Africa and a lot of others. Maybe its not the optimum way to operate, but it did work for some.

[TEPaul]

"Mike, TEP, Jim
Could anyone explain to me why Merion Cricket or Haverford Development would entrust the design of their golf course to an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had CBM and HH Barker at their disposal? My theory makes a hell of lot more sense than that."


Tom:

No, I don't believe anyone could explain to you why Merion Cricket Club (HDC was not in that position) would entrust the design of their course to a man like Hugh Wilson. But they did do exactly that for certain!

God knows we have tried to explain it to you over the years and not wishing to sound disrespectful or critical of you but I think the reason why we have not been able to explain it to you is fundamentally and essentially because you just do not understand that world, its history, its ethos and primarily those people from it and what they were capable of. In that short pretty well known term, they really were "The Best and the Brightest." They were all well and highly educated and perhaps partly because of that or even for other reasons many of them were remarkably curious men (and often women), confident of themselves and in themselves and their opinions and beliefs and they were clearly and provably some incredibly resourceful people in many and diverse ways.

It was a remarkable time in many ways, and certainly with golf architecture. And it was pretty brief. What some of them created and what they gave to the sport of golf and the instituion and art of golf course architecture very well could have been its most glorious and shining moment.

Amateurism and sportsmanship in sport was their cause and sometimes became their calling in this avocation. They did not have clients to constrict or limit their imaginations and their works. They did it for their friends and their members and they did it for no remuneration. They were the real adventurers, the real philosophers, and it's just a shame you cannot see it or understand THEM, and one of their greatest stars, Hugh Wilson!

[Tom MacWood]

Because Tom, they mentioned everyone else involved...

Barker was mentioned, in fact I'm not mistaken his plan for the golf course is the only documented plan.

[JESII]

He wasn't mentioned in gratitude. MCC must have had no regard for what he contributed.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Forgot Leeds, as well.

these guys all knew each other from competitions...it wasn't CBM the great architect to them...it was 9!. The expert golfer, who studied and learned how to build his own course, and let's go ask him how he did it so we can do it ourselves back at our club.

[TEPaul]

"You are well aware "laying out" can refer to the process of constructing and/or the process of routing. In this case I believe it refers to the constuction process because Wilson's first known involvement was 2/1/1911 and the evidence (P&O letters) suggests the course had already been routed at that point. There is no question Wilson was in charge of construction."



Tom MacWood:

I realize back then the golf architecture term "laying out," and particularly if just used alone, could mean a couple of things to different people from routing (a word not known or used in GCA back then) and designing to building and constructing; the latter two being virtually synonymous or identical.

That is why I think Francis was referring to what we today call routing and designing when he mentioned the committee he named was charged with laying out AND building a new course. If by "laying out" he meant constructing then he would've said or could've said the committee was charged with building and constructing a new course, two words that are virtually identical in meaning.

And that is why he actually said laying out (routing and designing AND building (constructing)----two parts of golf course architecture that are certainly NOT synonymous or identical.

But maybe you never knew that either.
 

[TEPaul]

As far as the capitalization Lloyd referred to ($300,000) I agree that that seemed to be a separate capitalization for HDC via half the subscriptions being offered to HDC and half to MCC that should probably not be referred to as a RE-capitalization of HDC.

As far as I can tell both HDC and the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Companies were not even stock capitalizations; they were essentially just straight partnerships, the ownership of which was just reflected in recorded ownership percentages. Or at least that's the way they were recorded with the state of Pennsylvania. Their only asset or valuation was the value of the land they'd accumulated---both their cost basis and the value of the land at any particular time.

Just so you understand it----HDC and the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company were virtually the same people (same owners). In June 1910 they told MCC they had accumulated app. 300 acres. In Nov. they told MCC they had accumulated 338.6 acres---eg adding the Dallas Estate and apparently the so-called Conner Estate.

Their cost basis in the original 300 acres was around $1,650 per acre. The Dallas Estate brought it down some because they only paid $1,190 per acre for that or at least that's the way it was reported in Nov 1910. I don't know what they paid per acre for the Connor Estate. When they went into their development phase and began marketing the lots they priced them at $2,500 per acre initially and over time they obviously kept going up from there. It may've taken 10-15 or more years to build that residential plan out but it looks like HDC had gotten out of it fairly quickly unless some of the listed owners of that land were just HDC people but none of them are HDC names I recognize.

So you do the math and let's hope you can do math better than you can read.

[JESII]

I wonder if Mr. Connell felt afterwards that he had just doubled his money...or had it cut in half...

[TEPaul]

"Think about this, Lloyd estimates $300,000 in stock to cover the total development cost of ALL 338 acres. The total paid for the golf course - $85,000 + $7,500 of $92,500 plus 221 acres at $2,500 ($552,500) equals $645,000 in return for the $300,000.

If you were an investor in the fund and a buyer of one of the lots, you got your lot for half price.

Lloyd took away most of the risk AND reward for HDC, and he did it prior to November 1910."



Jeeesus, Sully, I'm positive that's not the way Lloyd did it unless HDC's partners were interested in losing a couple of hundred thousand dollars on their orginal investment in that land.  

I think Lloyd's $300,000 capitalization was probably only for what he briefly mentioned it was for----eg basically to cover development costs, not the original investment cost in the land by the partners of HDC and the Philadelphia and Ardmore land companies which appears to have cumulatively been about $525,000.

I put the numbers of how I think all this was initially planned for everyone on a post on this thread somewhere and I'm not doing it again. Maybe I can find it.

[Mike Cirba]

Don't know if this means anything but Merion paid over 5700 for Golf House eoad...not sure if that was half or all the costs.

[JESII]

"Tom,

2 days ago you told me he doubled HDC's capitalization, thereby taking a half stake...didn't you?

With a half stake (not majority stake, but I already admitted to fudging what everyone says...), HDC, how did he not have an ownership position in that land?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sully:

But from the little I can tell about HDC it seems it was just a land and land development company and probably only involved in that Haverford development.

We know from what MCC said about it that the partners in that company cobbled together 338 acres that had an average per acre cost basis to them of $1,650. If that was their only asset that would basically capitalize them at $557,700. Once they actually had an agreement and sale to Lloyd with MCC for 117 acres for $726.50 that would've taken it down to $449, 650. Then in that MCC "circular" Lloyd says there was a capitalization of an additional $300,000 in stock subscription offering of which half was subscribed to by people not from MCC (I would assume that may've been the same people who were the partners in HDC and even the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co. that was the actual owner of the Johnson Farm in 1910 and whose partners seem to be pretty much the same people as HDC's) and the remaining half of the subscriptions were offered by Lloyd to MCC people some of whom had already subscribed from MCC (apparently Lloyd and those so-called "Guarnators").

Lloyd also said in that "circular" that if the offering was over subscribed the late comers would be treated pro-rata with the original subscribers so as not to unequitably treat late susbscribers. I have no idea if that stock offering was under-subscibed, right on the target or over-subscibed but it has always been my understand that with stock underwriters if their offering is under-subscribed they pretty much have to make up the difference to bring it up to the advertized subscription amount.

Then of course the HDC residential real estate land was marketed at $2,500 an acre so if it was sold out over time that would bring the HDC capitalization eventually up to $637,500 but then one needs to consider the cost of what Lloyd said the additional $300,000 subscription amount was going to be used for.

So you do the math or just look at it and you tell me how much control you think Lloyd had over HDC in the summer and fall of 1910.

I don't really know what Lloyd's actual stake in HDC's stock capitalization was at any time but it was probably never more than 10-20% totally but then you also have to remember that Lloyd's most useful roll for HDC was that he was delivering to them a real ready-made market---eg the real estate buyers of the HDC residential development and if one looks carefully at who actually bought those lots over time it is just amazing how many of them were MCC members and some of Lloyd's powerful friends such as E.J. Stotesbury, the managing partner of Drexel and Company, who appears to have bought 10-12 of those lots under the name of his personal secretary.

Still today there're an awful lot of Merion members who live in that residential neighborhood. Back in the early 1920s one of those lots was listed as owned by Hugh I. Wilson, right across from the 14th green, but I don't believe the poor guy lived long enough to move in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom,

Here's your post on the capitalization of HDC...I think you've got it wrong.

At a very basic level, I think you should consider what you just said HDC would have paid in total for all 338 acres versus what they were going to get back for 221 acres at $2,500 per and another 117 for $85,000.

Not much profit in that bet for HDC...why would they think about it?

Where did the $1,650 come from? Merion's comments about getting their deal for half price?

[TEPaul]

"Where did the $1,650 come from? Merion's comments about getting their deal for half price?"



Yes. MCC said in the Search Committee report of June 29th 1910 that Connell who they identified as the man they'd been in contact with stated that HDC would sell MCC 100 acres (or apparently whatever they required for the course) at a per acre price of one half the per acre price to them (HDC and Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co) of the 300 acres they had secured at that point (June 1910). That was $825 per acre.

Obviously by Nov. 1910 the amount HDC had secured was 338.6 acres (the addition of the Dallas Estate and apparently the Connor Estate).
At that point or when the HDC offer was made to MCC the per acre price to MCC was down to $726.50 per acre (117 acres at $726.50=$85,000). That means to me that either Lloyd just negotiated HDC down further or perhaps something happened I've never thought of before----eg the per acre price of the Dallas Estate and the Conner Estate (another 38.6 acres) was low enough it took the whole average per acre price for the entire 338.6 acres to HDC down to about $1,453 that $726.50 per acre for MCC would be one half of.

I've got to go out to dinner but I understand the Dallas Estate's per acre price was $1190 (21 acres for $25,000) so somebody could work out the amount the X factor would have to be---eg what the Connor Estate would've been per acre to get the whole 338 to a per acre price of $1,453 to HDC.
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

He wasn't mentioned in gratitude. MCC must have had no regard for what he contributed.

Mentioned in gratitude? Was Barker mentioned in gratitude with all the golf courses he designed? What about Flynn? Is Flynn's architectural contribution at Merion mentioned in gratitude? It seems to be it has only been recognized of late.

I don't think the importance of routing is fully appreciated today, and I think it was appreciated even less back then.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

I realize back then the golf architecture term "laying out," and particularly if just used alone, could mean a couple of things to different people from routing (a word not known or used in GCA back then) and designing to building and constructing; the latter two being virtually synonymous or identical.

That is why I think Francis was referring to what we today call routing and designing when he mentioned the committee he named was charged with laying out AND building a new course. If by "laying out" he meant constructing then he would've said or could've said the committee was charged with building and constructing a new course, two words that are virtually identical in meaning.

And that is why he actually said laying out (routing and designing AND building (constructing)----two parts of golf course architecture that are certainly NOT synonymous or identical.

But maybe you never knew that either.
 

When was the course routed...before December 1910 or after December 1910?

[TEPaul]

"When was the course routed...before December 1910 or after December 1910?"


Tom MacWood:

Are you even aware of what we have referred to from MCC's meeting minutes for over a year now as the Wilson Committee Report to the MCC Board meeting of April 19, 1911?



"Barker was mentioned, in fact I'm not mistaken his plan for the golf course is the only documented plan." 
 
 
As for a documented plan what do you think was submitted to that Board meeting of April 19, 1911 for approval to be constructed,  18 wooden stakes on the ground??  

[Tom MacWood]

You didn't answer my question.

[Tom MacWood]

"Barker was mentioned, in fact I'm not mistaken his plan for the golf course is the only documented plan." 
 
 
As for a documented plan what do you think was submitted to that Board meeting of April 19, 1911 for approval to be constructed,  18 wooden stakes on the ground??  

Barker's plan is the only documented plan where we know the identity of the author.

[TEPaul]

“You didn't answer my question.”


Tom MacWood:

You didn’t answer my question either.

Your question was;  “When was the course routed...before December 1910 or after December 1910?”

The course that was approved and built was routing after December 1910.


My question was:  “Are you even aware of what we have referred to from MCC's meeting minutes for over a year now as the Wilson Committee Report to the MCC Board meeting of April 19, 1911?”



You said:

“Barker's plan is the only documented plan where we know the identity of the author.”


That’s not true. We know the identity of the authors of the documented plan that was approved and built. Among others including chairman Wilson and his brother, Francis identified their identities in his 1950 article for the US Open. To wit:

"The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new course was composed of Mess'rs Horatio Gates Lloyd, Rodman Griscom*, Hugh I. Wilson and Dr. Harry Toulmin. I was added to it, perhaps because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit, level and tape."  

[JESII]

Should we talk about Lloyd or Barker?

[JESII]

Regarding HDC's capitalization...I don't think their assets (real estate held) represents their capitalization. There was certainly debt tied to those assets...at least going forward their would be per Lloyd letter of $1,000 in cash and the remainder on mortgage.

Butlet's just do the math.

If HDC bought 338 acres at $1,500 per acre they would have spent $507,000 for just the land.

Now, with the Capitalization only dealing with "development costs" of $300,000, half of which would be paid by HDC and half by MCC subscribers, the total out of pocket would $807,000.

If they sold the golf course's 117 acres for $85,000 and the remaining 221 for $2,500 they would have collected $637,500.

What am I missing?

Is it possible they would have bought the land for $1,500 per acre, much less, $1,650?

I don't think so.

I think the $300,000 was the Cpaital needed to buy and mortgage the whole thing.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked and theorized, "Mike, TEP, Jim, Could anyone explain to me why Merion Cricket or Haverford Development would entrust the design of their golf course to an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had CBM and HH Barker at their disposal? My theory makes a hell of lot more sense than that."

Isn't that EXACTLY what C.C. Worthington was doing at the same EXACT moment in time with A.W. Tillinghast at Shawnee? Heck, Tilly wasn't even a successful insurance salesman as Wilson was but a FAILED Rubber Goods Store Manager. He had never designed a cours ebefore this and yet it would host a major championship just 8 years after it opened for play.

His other courses that followed didn't turn out too shabby either which simply shows that all great architects need to have a FIRST design. Sorry, basing your "theory" on that hypothetical reasoning is proven false by the contemporaneous historical accounts of parallel projects in the same area and among the same people (class, status and golf).

[Tom MacWood]

“You didn't answer my question.”


Tom MacWood:

You didn’t answer my question either.

Your question was;  “When was the course routed...before December 1910 or after December 1910?”

The course that was approved and built was routing after December 1910.


My question was:  “Are you even aware of what we have referred to from MCC's meeting minutes for over a year now as the Wilson Committee Report to the MCC Board meeting of April 19, 1911?”

No, I'm not aware of it. There have been a lot of MCC documents posted on this site, but I don't recall ever seeing that document. When was the course routed?



You said:

“Barker's plan is the only documented plan where we know the identity of the author.”


That’s not true. We know the identity of the authors of the documented plan that was approved and built. Among others including chairman Wilson and his brother, Francis identified their identities in his 1950 article for the US Open. To wit:

"The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new course was composed of Mess'rs Horatio Gates Lloyd, Rodman Griscom*, Hugh I. Wilson and Dr. Harry Toulmin. I was added to it, perhaps because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit, level and tape."  

Francis mentions nothing of a routing or a plan. He emphasizes construction as the main purpose of that group. Like I said Barker's is the only documented plan.

[TEPaul]

"Regarding HDC's capitalization...I don't think their assets (real estate held) represents their capitalization."

I don't either. We do have HDC's company registration, and it seems to have been just a straight partnership (no outside stock equity offering or component).

It seems the $300,000 stock offering in the name of HDC by apparently Lloyd was just done for development purposes relating to the infrastructure of HDC's 338.6 land asset development.

The value (cost basis) of HDC's land asset (338.6 acres) was apparently around $490,000-$550,00 as a cost basis to HDC. We do have the names of the actual partners of HDC and the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co (the title owner of the 140 acre Johnson Farm) until it was transfered on Dec. 19, 1910.

Interestingly, the corporate registration of HDC seems to have been part of MCC's archives from the beginning of the move to Ardmore. We found it in Merion's archives.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()