News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1675 on: April 29, 2011, 11:52:02 AM »
Jim,

But they DID route the golf course and then draw the lines!  

That's what they did between December 1910 and April 1911 when the final routing plan was approved by the Merion Board of Governor's, which then authorized the SPECIFIC purchase of the EXACT 120 acres (plus 3 leased acres) that was completed in July 1911.

ALL of the documents and evidence prior to December 1910 show clearly that NO SUCH boundaries existed prior to then.   All they had prior was the undetermined 117 acres of land at a fixed price that was promised by Connell in November, 1910, and which was then purchased (and encompassed within) by Lloyd in December of 1910 when he bought both the entire Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate. underlines are mine!

NGLA did virtually the exact same thing as far as securing a fixed number of undetermined acres at a fixed price within a larger tract first, and then spending the next several months routing the course and staking the boundaries for a purchase that happened months later.


If only you fully believed this we would be fine...but you insist on using an "Approximate Road" as a hard border to make your case, even though the acreage doesn't match the stated acreage...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1676 on: April 29, 2011, 12:00:43 PM »
Jim,

I'm willing to drop the western border (approx road) from the discussion because;

1) It wasn't built in November 15th, 1910.

2) We don't know if it matched the contour map that Wilson's group was working with

3) We can't accurately measure the Land Plan from a photo of a scrapbook taken at an angle.

Besides, the 310 yards to 190 yard measurement and the timing of that is the smoking gun, frankly.

I think what we DO know about the western border is that;

1) HDC wanted to maximize golf course frontage with all bordering estate homes facing the course.

2) HDC and Merion wanted to create a aesthetically pleasing road that was curvilinear.

3) Both parties were somewhat incentivized to keep golf course acreage to a minimum.


Francis's plan impacted ALL of those things and were the reasons he had to go to Lloyd seeking permission.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 12:07:54 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1677 on: April 29, 2011, 12:12:14 PM »
OK. So you're saying the road on the November 15 map was just out of the clear blue for aesthetic reasons (as you've suggested in the past)? Or that it was approximate based on an idea of where the holes would go?

See my point, I admit it may be slicing pretty thin, is that simply writing the word "approximate" on that map imples they had a general idea of where the road would go but hadn't pinned it down precisely yet...the boundary was "not definite".

I agree with David that the mere presence of the triangle on that land purchase map is evidence enough that Francis's idea occurred prior to then. Unfortunately for him, I think this disproves his premise of CBM having a heavy hand in the final product because as of June 29th he was clearly not part of the team. His letter was much more observational than involved.

Naturally the next question is what were they doing in March and April then? I assume they were fidgeting with exact hole lengths and basic features as opposed to actual routes around the property. Do you think they actually had 5 distinct routes around the property in the game as of April 1911?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 12:20:45 PM by Jim Sullivan »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1678 on: April 29, 2011, 12:41:54 PM »
Jim,   I understand why you would want to defer to Jeff Brauer on some matters or at least give his opinions special credence, but Jeff is hardly behaving as an unbiased professional here.  Rather, he seems to be here shilling for his buddy.

The only leg these guys have to stand on is to pretend Cuyler's letter indicates that the land had not been chosen or the routing process even yet begun as of December 21, 1910.  But the letter does not say that.  All it says is that the boundaries of the course had not yet been definitely determined. So what? We know CBM wouldn't choose the final layout plan for months, so why would we expect the exact plan with the exact width of the holes to have been determined in December?    

Look at Wilson's letters, including his first one in February.   He sure seems to think that Merion had "purchased one hundred seventeen (117) acres of land."  And he seems to think he knew where "the Course" was located, and would even provide Piper and Oakley a contour map.   It seems like they knew where "the Course" was located to me.  

It seems a more reasonable interpretation of Cuyler that at that point they were waiting to draw the final lines until they knew exactly how much room to the west they would need for the 14th and 15th holes.  

______________________________________

Also Jim, to refresh your memory on this 310 yards nonsense, for good reason the golf course owned the road.  There was never a 310 yard triangle. There was a 190 yard triangle as described by Francis and then about 120 yards of road! Not sure what MCC wanting access to College Ave. to the north has to do the land swap, and I doubt Mike knows either since he is obviously just shilling for TEPaul on that issue.  
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 12:46:33 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1679 on: April 29, 2011, 01:53:15 PM »
Wow, David...that's quite funny.

It sure looks like a 310 yard long triangle drawn on this November 15th, 1910 Land Plan to me!   Must be these damn new glasses!!  ;)  ;D

Seriously, I don't care if it was a square, a rectangle, or a parallelagram, the western side of this really doesn't matter, although it is YOUR contention that this Land Plan depicts a fully routed golf course at this point, not mine.

Frankly, all that matters is that the fixed boundaries that we DO know, and that are measurable and immovable, are those on the east and north.

This map makes clear that as of November 15th, 1910, land that was supposed to be part of the Golf Course went as far north as College Avenue with an eastern border for 310 yards along Haverford College and the McFadden property as represented on the Land Plan sent to Merion members.  

THAT could not be some simple error, or some "approximation".   This was by INTENT.   THAT is where they thought they were going to put the golf course at that time.   It is indisputable and the deeds reflect it.



« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 02:06:05 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1680 on: April 29, 2011, 02:03:11 PM »
Jim,

You're telling me that they had this mondo brainstorm that put the last five holes in place down to a specific yardage that required Francis to get permission from Lloyd (who didn't own the land at that time?)  and then didn't even take the time to depict it accurately on a SCALE MAP sent to the membership?

Oh...and they were also probably so excited at finishing their routing that they also forgot to show any of the hole locations of that routing on the Land Plan?   ;)   ;D

In answer to your other questions, I think they had variations on a theme, and preferences, but yes...I think they had five distinct routings in April 1911.   From the sounds of their description in the MCC Minutes, it sounds like they tinkered endlessly with it over a number of months, likely since Jan/Feb.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 02:08:04 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1681 on: April 29, 2011, 02:14:45 PM »
This map makes clear that as of November 15th, 1910, land that was supposed to be part of the Golf Course went as far north as College Avenue with an eastern border for 310 yards along Haverford College and the McFadden property as represented on the Land Plan sent to Merion members.  

THAT could not be some simple error, or some "approximation".   This was by INTENT.   THAT is where they thought they were going to put the golf course at that time.   It is indisputable and the deeds reflect it.

Great!  We finally agree.   By mid November Merion was planning on using the land west of Haverford College for the golf course.  So the swap had taken place by then.

Now that wasnt so hard, was it?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 02:18:05 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1682 on: April 29, 2011, 02:17:06 PM »
Yes, David, easy peasy.

And they had also seemingly determined to use the land of one J. Franklin McFadden as the eastern border of their golf course as well, along with determining the golf course would run as far north as College Avenue by November 15th, 1910.

Sure sounds like the Merion course we know and love today!  ;) 

Glad we agree on something!
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 02:20:51 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1683 on: April 29, 2011, 03:57:23 PM »

THAT could not be some simple error, or some "approximation".   This was by INTENT.   THAT is where they thought they were going to put the golf course at that time.   It is indisputable and the deeds reflect it.



Mike,

I'm going to need you to clarify this from just a couple of posts ago. What was by INTENT? What deeds?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1684 on: April 29, 2011, 04:14:50 PM »
One fact explains why the triangle existed as it did on the Nov 15, 1910 plan - the developer needed a road to produce those fine houses fronting the golf course, connecting at both ends as would be typical, and tying into an existing road (Trowbridge?) since safe and efficient road planning dictates that two intersections close together are not as safe and efficient as if the lined up.  It was possible o move Golf House Road away from Towbridge, to produce a rectangle wide enough for two holes, but it would have put them over their 120 acre target.

That triangle was 310 yards long and maybe 60 yards wide, but it was determined by a combo of road planning needs and, golf acreage targets, not the final routing (obviously, since it’s not reflective of the final routing) It was labeled as “approximate” because the golf holes hadn’t been fit to it yet, as shown by club documents. 

And there is no reason to beleive that Francis 130 x 190 yard triangle couldn't have been modified from a 60 x 310 yard triangle just as easily as it could have been added if Haverford college was the first planned north border.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1685 on: April 29, 2011, 04:31:16 PM »
Jim,

I think that you and I both seek some middle ground which is probably reality, and others perhaps get hung up in black and white theories, start and end dates, strict attribution, etc.

Let’s look at a couple of things from my perspective.

David’s essay with no proof, basically postulates that MCC “must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA."  Has anyone looked beyond that to see how CBM did it at his own Chicago Golf, other consulting jobs he took, Piping Rock?  How many of his dozens of projects followed the NGLA ideal?

And, why overlook the fact that he basically lucked into the ideal process at NGLA more because of Alvord’s situation and direction than his own beliefs.  Why do we have to assume that he would strongly advise Merion there was only one way to do this?  It wasn’t the only way CBM did this, and yet, that is what David and others have fixated on.

We forget that CBM first offered for 120 acres somewhere in the middle of the “in planning” Alvord subdivision, without a routing (At least, his writings don’t mention it, but he had postulated earlier that about 120 acres being ideal for a golf course.)  Does that sound familiar?  IMHO, the ONLY reason he (and Behr later) writes in depth about the second site process is because it was so ideal, not so common or mandatory.  

If CBM did only his ideal course that way (and on the second try at that) how is that proof that Merion had to do it that way, rather than a more typical way?  It appears to me to have been a long, slow carefully considered process of constant refinement to a final routing, ending at the last possible moment prior to construction, or maybe slightly after.  I find situations where I can design right up to dropping the grass seed are in fact the most ideal!  

The Merion parties brought in two Golf Course Architects for opinions on whether a good golf course was possible on that site. If you bring in two experts and both say it’s good property, and one does a first pass routing of parts of the course (Barker) and another studies the maps enough to tell them that the 3 Acres would make a great short hole par 3, and the Quarry can be used (CBM) and goes so far as to suggest 120 acres (both in general and after looking at the regular borders, dimensions and gentle topo of the MCC site) and a bit of wiggle room from his experience, wouldn’t you feel comfortable that you were making good choices in moving forward?  

As I have speculated, CBM’s recommendations were probably based on his look at the Barker plan, which probably showed that holes west of Ardmore could only fit the land a certain way - as it happened, the creek is right in the middle of the property (between 4 and 5) and then veers to more of a 1/4 - 3/4 location up near 7.  By luck of topography and border, it was pretty clear that the land was four holes wide.  Holes 10-12 were obviously a bit clunky, running against the long dimension of the land.

If nothing else, I believe Barkers plan convinced CBM and the committee that to fit enough holes of adequate length west of Ardmore the Dallas Estate would be beneficial.  But, we cannot know if any Barker holes were used exactly, or if there were map scribbles by CBM while on site looking over the maps, Barkers plan, and the ground.

In other words, based on CBM’s expert opinion of a one day visit, and another day to look maps and write a letter, MCC had done just enough to be comfortable that a final solution was attainable, rather than preparing a final routing by November 15, 1910.  If they had the final routing at this time, of course there would be no need to leave the wiggle room with Golf House Road in December 1910, or to change the lease agreements in November 1910, about a week after agreeing to buy the land, etc.  The record on when it was finished is pretty clear.

You could argue yes, Barker had an influence, and CBM provided at least some of the holes in June 1910 and perhaps in March 1911 when they were at NGLA.  DM could probably pick out from above that I would agree at least parts of the course had some kind of “rough routing” or interim study, or TMac the same.  I am fine with that, because routing “parts” don’t constitute a routing to me, given the importance of having it all fit together, which seems to have happened on CBM’s last visit.

To use TMac’s phrase, Merion’s original version of its history is certainly both a “plausible theory” given how things are usually done and still has the most documentation to back it up.  

Don’t know if that changes your mind, but it sums up why I argue what I argue in this.



« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 04:35:03 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1686 on: April 29, 2011, 04:45:22 PM »
Jeff Brauer,

I really need you to stop misrepresenting what I have said and what my essay said.    I NEVER wrote, in my essay or anywhere else, that "that MCC 'must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA.'"  I didn't write this.  This wasn't my analysis at all, nor do I believe it, nor have I "fixated on this,"  So just stop!  Stop claiming you know my positions when obviously you don't know what the hell you are talking about!  

For you to continue to misrepresent me on this point is bad enough, but for you to pretend you are actually quoting me is complete bullshit and completely dishonest.  Like your buddy, you cannot deal with my actual position so you just make shit up.   It is really pathetic and you need to stop.

Surely you can manage to discuss this stuff without your repeated false representations about my essay, can't you?  You don't even have an accurate version of the document, for God sakes, so what the hell are you doing pretending to know what is says? It is not as if I have been shy about expressing my opinions on this stuff, so there is no need for your false representations!
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1687 on: April 29, 2011, 05:09:26 PM »
To All,

Once again, I post a cut and Paste of David's April 2008 essay, unchanged.  Yes, I am quoting David's essay verbatim, and apparently he believes that no one will bother to go over to his essay, but rather simply accept his blatant lies that I am being dishonest.  Please, check it out to verify that I am not a lying bastard that David claims I am.  Here is the EXACT section in its entirety (to avoid claims of cherry picking) where David discusses his theory of Merion's land purchase.

As I said, there is no evidence or documents just a presentation of what CBM wrote about NGLA and a comment that they did it the same way.

Can someone please tell me how quoting is essay is misrepresenting it?  I think we all know what's happening. I am catching David in a fact by fact analysis, and he cannot refute it, so he attacks my credibility.  Not, of course, ever really presenting a fact to refute it.  I think David knows its over for his essay, and he's going down fighting.

Am I wrong?  Does his essay say Merion bought land to fit holes predesigned, and that it was similar to the way NGLA did it?  Does my computer screen filter some stuff out?

Thanks for reading.

Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.

It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.

The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted. (p. 158, emphasis added.)

In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.



Are we going to argue that when he writes "Merion bought the land where there golf course was already envisioned" that this would not imply routing? Honeslty, I cannot see any other way to interpret this.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 05:14:00 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1688 on: April 29, 2011, 05:14:52 PM »
David,

PS - Go pound sand.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1689 on: April 29, 2011, 05:38:08 PM »
Jeff,

Regarding your post 1695: it certainly makes sense on the surface to want as much golf course frontage as possible but in this case the implication of doing so with no other cause is to impart a great deal of leverage in these negotiations to HDC, which I don't quite buy. And then, in the course of the design process, HDC loses 120 yards of frontage...what do you make of this? Could be cause for litigation if I had bought the corner lot at College Avenue...

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1690 on: April 29, 2011, 05:45:31 PM »
Jim,

There were no actual lots on that road until later, so there would be no reason for any lawsuit.

HDC and MCC were related and HDC wanted the best for both. They really only lost one lot which I am sure they regretted, but were willing to do.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1691 on: April 29, 2011, 05:58:35 PM »
I finally check back into this thread and find you idiots have managed to divert it back to Merion??
Really?
You haven't got Merion settled yet and have to drag other threads into it?
Amazing.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 06:02:17 PM by RSLivingston_III »
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1692 on: April 29, 2011, 06:00:14 PM »
Jim.

HDC lost nothing.

At this point Lloyd had already purchased all of that land .

It's why Francis had to go to Lloyd for permission and not HDC.

Starting to make sense?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1693 on: April 29, 2011, 07:42:19 PM »
Ralph,

I think the misunderstanding is that you actually believed that Mike intended this to be about anything but Merion from the beginning.    The entire thread has been a subterfuge for him to try an disprove something in my essay that I didn't even claim!  This is about the fourth of these threads where Mike has pulled the same thing. 

___________________________________________________
As usual, it is Jeff Brauer's analytical abilities that fail here, not my IMO.    Again and again he takes some portion of my IMO, twists it beyond all recognition and and makes all sort of unsupportable assertions about what I wrote (or didn't write.)
-- Like when he falsely claimed that the IMO indicated that CBM and HJW made more than two trips to Merion;
-- And like when he falsely claimed that my IMO contained no factual support that CBM and HJW remained substantially involved with Merion after helping Merion choose the land.
-- And like when he falsely claimed that my IMO provided no support for my conclusion that CBM was communicating with Hugh Wilson in or around January 1910
-- And like when he falsely claimed that my IMO indicated that Wilson had been involved with CBM throughout the period between June and February.

So I am not surprised that he has done it again, this time going so far as to falsely quote me in the process.  All because he apparently has no clue of what anything in my IMO actually means.

First he falsely quoted me, claiming I wrote that "MCC  'must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA.' "  I never wrote that in my essay or anywhere else.

But Jeff thinks that his false representation is justified because I did write, "Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion."  Huh?   While this is from my essay, it doesn't justify his false claim.  He is confused.  Again. All I did was draw a parallel between what happened at Merion and what happened at NGLA.  That is a far cry from claiming necessary causation.  

I do think that "Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion." But this does not logically lead to his false claim that I think that "MCC  'must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA.' "  We know what happened at Merion is by looking at the various documents indicating what happened at Merion, including the Francis statement!  I never wrote that Merion "must have" done it the same because that is what happened at NGLA.   Jeff's claim that I did is ludicrous.

In other words, I never claimed that A "must have" happened because B happened.  There was no claim of causation in my statement.  I did not say that one must have happened because of the other!   And I did NOT base my conclusions about what happened at Merion on what happened at NGLA!  Rather I simply pointed out the parallel.  

But this is what Jeff does.  He takes some snippet, misconstrues it, then starts making crazy pronouncements about my position!   And incredibly he seems to think it is A-OK because what he misconstrued something from my essay!  Go figure?  Like Mike and TEPaul, Jeff Brauer seems to think he understands my position better than I do.  I am sure this is NOT the case.  All of them should worry a bit time trying to understand their own positions and less time misrepresenting mine!  
____________________

Likewise, regarding the triangle,  Jeff is drawing all sorts of conclusions without any firm grip on the facts.   Haverford Development Company controlled the land North of College avenue as well, and that parcel was part of the same development.  HDC could not only have put Turnbridge where ever they wanted.  And he apparently doesn't understand that, but for the swap, HDC could have developed the land adjacent to and west of Haverford College for real estate regardless of where the put the road.  With the swap they gave up at least one prime lot along what was to have been the northern border of the golf course property.

Same goes for Brauer's absurd statement that the triangle was "maybe 60 yards wide."  It has no basis in fact.  Not even Mike has had the nerve to claim it was that narrow!  Unlike Mike and Jeff, I have never relied on Wayne's distorted and misleading snapshot of the November 1910 plan to estimate the width (Wayne had never seen that document at the time of my IMO; he had me send him the copy I used in my essay shortly thereafter, but apparently he preferred to take and use a distorted and misleading snapshot instead of the accurate black and white copy I provided him.)  Both Bryan and I measured the width and both came up with a width which would comfortably allow for the tee and green.

________________________________  

While he hasn't quite figured the ramifications, Cirba now admits that the land west of Haverford College was definitely intended to be part of the golf course by November 1910!  What Cirba (and and apparently Brauer) seem to have forgotten is that Merion swapped for land that until then was NOT part of the golf course.   This ought to settle matters, but something tells me he will witness yet another about face.
___________________________________

Jim,

I am sure you realize that Mike is fibbing again when he claims that Lloyd owned the property.  Lloyd took the property in his name, but he did so ON BEHALF OF HAVERFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.   

That Mike continues to pretend differently goes to show just how slimy he is willing to be in these discussions. 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 07:47:53 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1694 on: April 29, 2011, 10:13:43 PM »
Jim,

As far as deeds, Merion never owned ANY of the land north of the 16th tee except maintaining domain over half of Golf House Road so that the rest of that 120 yards that Lloyd purchased for the club north to College Avenue along the eastern border of the proposed golf course land in December 1911 (reflected on the November 1910 Land Plan) seems to have simply disappeared between Nov 1910 and July 1911.  

Utterly Amazing.

And, to be precise, Merion owned the right side of the road north of 16, and HDC owned the left side, but then they handed the title over to the township as good neighbors do.  

And now, even more amazingly we are suddenly hearing from David Moriarty that Lloyd took title for HDC, even though we've showed clearly in contemporaneous documents that he was advised to take title under his name by Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, Merion's attorney, to protect the interests of the Merion Cricket Club due to undetermined boundaries for the golf course at that time!

Wow.   That's some Holy Conflict of Interest, Batman!!

This thing is unraveling faster than Weezer's sweater!  ;)  ;D


Ralph,

This is the place these things get discussed and debated.

I like you personally, but if you have nothing productive to add or meaningful evidence to produce and are only here to hurl bombs, why don't you and David go somewhere else and play with your hickory sticks?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:03:57 PM by MCirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1695 on: April 29, 2011, 10:34:00 PM »
I finally check back into this thread and find you idiots have managed to divert it back to Merion??
Really?
You haven't got Merion settled yet and have to drag other threads into it?
Amazing.


RSL,

This thread was never about NGLA.

I thought I posted that months ago ;D

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1696 on: April 29, 2011, 10:36:53 PM »
Patrick,

If you want to go down with the sinking ship, feel free to hop on board.

We've learned LOTS about NGLA on this thread, despite the obfuscation and distraction by some (not naming any names).

Now that some others have brought up the supposed parallels to Merion, I guess that line's been crossed, so feel free to jump in but I have to tell you...the iceberg has already been struck and the dance band is playing.  
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 10:41:03 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1697 on: April 29, 2011, 11:27:29 PM »
Unraveling? When was the last time anyone brought any new information to this debate?

All I know is that there is no chance in hell the powers-to-be at Merion would've asked an inexperienced untested insurance salesman to deliver them a world class golf course. And if anyone is interested in confirming that all they have to do is read Wilson's own account.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:41:14 PM by Tom MacWood »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1698 on: April 30, 2011, 12:27:16 AM »
And now, even more amazingly we are suddenly hearing from David Moriarty that Lloyd took title for HDC, even though we've showed clearly in contemporaneous documents that he was advised to take title under his name by Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, Merion's attorney, to protect the interests of the Merion Cricket Club due to undetermined boundaries for the golf course at that time!

Suddenly?  Where the hell have you been the past few years?   The documents establish that LLOYD TOOK TITLE FOR HDC.  

Seriously Mike?  This has been covered probably a dozen times, and the very document you mention establishes the opposite of what you claim.  So this cannot be for real.

Here is the relevant portion of what we have been told is a transcription of the relevant Cuyler letter, with my emphasis:
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently.

Who should take title?  HAVERFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
How should HAVERFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY take title?   In Mr. Lloyd's name.
What does this mean?  It means that Lloyd was acting on behalf of HDC and that Lloyd took title for HDC.  So while the title was "in fact" in his name, it was not his land to do with what he pleased.  Lloyd was holding the land for HDC pending the final determination of the boundaries, at which time Lloyd was obligated to convey the land for the golf course to MCC and the rest to HDC.  

We've been covering this for years now.  It isn't complicated for those who understand such things.  And for those like you it has been explained probably a dozen times! Yet you pretend like you've never heard this before, like it is some outrageous and absurd proposition.   You just have to be feigning ignorance here.

Quote
Ralph,

This is the place these things get discussed and debated.

I like you personally, but if you have nothing productive to add or meaningful evidence to produce and are only here to hurl bombs, why don't you and David go somewhere else and play with your hickory sticks?

There is no need to get nasty with Ralph, Mike.  He is correct.  It is idiotic that you keep doing this in these threads, and we are idiots for letting you.  Besides, if being productive was a pre-requisite for posting here, you'd wouldn't be recycling through all this same stale garbage yet again.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 02:40:49 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1699 on: April 30, 2011, 04:05:15 AM »
Mike,

Please, please tell me that you aren't studying metes and bounds again.   Or, deeds.  Or, looking for stone monuments.  Or pontificating on curvilinear roads. ???  We did this ad absurdum two years ago.

I was really taken by your "linear dimension area" concept.  Could you explain that one?   ;D

Re your point 2 below, to be factual, the 310 yard dimension did still exist in the spring of 1911 when Golf House Road was built, and in July 1911 when the 120.01 acres was deeded to MCCGA.  The 120.01 acres included a rectangular strip that was 3.667 yards wide by 76.667 yards long that ran south from College Ave.  South of the 76.667 yard long strip the east-west dimension broadened rapidly following the curvilinear arc of GHR as built at the time, and the same as it is now.  That broadened area is 233.333 yards long.

If you go back two years you can see my theory on what was swapped and how the boundaries were realigned.  But, you didn't buy it then and you probably wouldn't buy it now.  However, your suppositions below don't wash either.

Maybe you'd like to revisit the extra 13 acres that Merion optioned to bring the total for the course to 130 acres and where I think that 130 acres was located.  But, nah, those were only contemporaneous news articles and must have been factually incorrect.

  
Jeff,

Yes, it seems clear and obvious but that's never been a factor here.   ;)  


Jim,

I do not think you understand the significance of the point I made about that 310 yard linear dimension on that triangle versus the 190 yard dimension. It is really important because that linear dimension area covers some fixed points on the ground (stone monuments and the middle of College Ave) that have not changed for many years going back before MCC came to that land.
 
The 310 versus the 190 yard dimension is really important because they are both provable!!  They are provable by a series of deeds runs over an extended period of time and they are recorded by the metes and bounds that appear on any deed.
 
Try to look at it this way:
 
1. That linear dimension (310 yards) exists on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan (that's provable---eg land to the west of it is colored in green and goes all the ways to College Ave) and it existed on the metes and bounds of Lloyd's December 1910 deed (he owned the land up there under College Ave from the McFadden place over to the Taylor or Davis farm (the dimensions of the Johnson Farm at the top of the L)).
 
2. It no longer existed when that road was built and dedicated (it got reduced from 310 yards to 190 yards). That effectively reduced Merion's ownership and use in any way of the top 120 yards of that original 310 yard linear dimension due to the road and its dedication on both sides of the middle by MCC and HDC (the road and its dedicated easement is app 7-8 yards wide).
 
3. If the deed from the transfer of the land from Lloyd to MCCGC Corp in July 1911 reflects the reduction of that linear dimension from 310 to 190 yards, then what does that say and what does it indicate?  It indicates that there was a rearrangement of boundary lines at some point between Dec. 1910 and July 1911.
 
I would say that effectively and provably brackets in time some land dimension change such as the Francis land swap idea, wouldn't you?  It also establishes in time a point before which it could not have happened such as Nov, 15, 1910 or in this case Dec. 1910 when Lloyd took by deed 160 acres of HDC land.

If the course and its effective 120 acres (plus 3 leased =123 acres) that was created by deed in July 1911 was already accomplished before Dec. 1910 or Nov 15, 1910 why would there have been any need for him to do that?  

« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 04:07:35 AM by Bryan Izatt »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back