The Pine Valley Deeds

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, 

When you find yourself misrepresenting my position as you do above, perhaps it is time for you to take a few steps back and a few deep breaths.  I never said anything about "45 degrees off north" and I am pretty sure Shelley wasn't penning a legal description when he mentioned the Sumner house was to the northeast of PV on a hill overlooking the course.   

And Bryan, this isn't my "quest." You've been driving this train-wreck from the initial post.  I was hoping you were actually trying to get to what really happened rather than merely trying to make some petty rhetorical point, but I am starting to have my doubts.  Increasingly, you don't really have much use for information that doesn't jibe with your "quest" and your latest thread looks like little more than the next chapter in some grudge you have against MacWood.   

Too bad. 

[JESII]

Jim,

I agree it makes sense that the station would have been located near this point, but I don't know for sure that it was.

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

One odd thing is that one of the history books indicated that the Sumner residence was northeast of the PV.  I am not sure how that fits in with the roads visible on that old map.

So we agree that the station was in the same location as the one drawn on the topos? I'm not sure how this could be proven to you more since you reserved a little room with..."but I don't know for sure". Seems pretty certain to me. For what it's worth, Tom Paul referenced some piece that says the station was rebuilt, but not moved, could that be what you remember?

Regarding your pestering about what NE means and what Shelly may have meant by it...look at the high hills in that 1898 map...a home on any one of them would have been NE of Pine Valley. What's the point?

[JESII]

Do any of the books with the pictures looking from 6 or 3 mention the house out in the distance? Is that the Ireland (or Sumner?) home? If they owned 3200 acres there wouldn't be many other houses around...

[DMoriarty]

My pestering about what northeast means??  I think you need to review.  I just noted what Shelley had written and wondered how a house to the northeast of the club could line up with a station (and road) near the northwest corner of the tracks?  Bryan is the one trying to reinvent the compass and apply legal description terminology to a casual reference in the Shelley book.  

I agree the hills are to the northeast and I expect that is where the Sumner home was, but the station isn't to the northeast, and neither was Old Mill Road.

As for the station, I could be misremembering, or perhaps I am remembering the reference to he Sumner house being to the northeast.  I agree that most of the various the sources make it sound as if it was in the same location.  The notable exception is Baker.  Baker's description makes it sound like there was no station there previously, and Baker was there unlike some or all of the others.  Baker also describes them reaching the property by car rather than by train, which sounds odd if there was a station right across the road from the course.  

The easiest way to know for certain would probably be to look at the deeds for the land on the other side of the property, but I don't care enough to bother with that, and apparently neither does Bryan.  

[JESII]

If you've got a car, why would a train be easier? Especially if you're not where the train started...

Also, why would the house of a 3200 acre estate be on a road large enough to make it onto a map?

[DMoriarty]

I would think a train would be easier because it was around 1910 and auto travel presented some challenges.  But they could have preferred to drive, or perhaps it was not convenient to take the train from Merchantville.   Joe Baker, though, makes it sound as if there was no station there, does he not?  

3200 acres sounds more like a farm or a ranch than an estate.  I would be very surprised if Sumner did not live on or near a road, and I would be very surprised if the roads that show up as dotted lines on that 1898 map amounted to much.  They were apparently not even dedicated roads, otherwise Crump would not have needed to acquire the right to pass.

But I guess it is possible that the sumner house was to the northeast yet they created a long and indirect commute to their private flag stop.  Maybe they just weren't very good with directions, or maybe they liked driving. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

From the beginning of this conversation you said the picture was taken from the 6th tee with the 2nd green and 3rd tee in line in the center of the picture BECAUSE that's what the caption means when it says "from the high ridge of the 6th looking across the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and 3rd tee". This is not debateable, even Macwood will come out of his stupor to confirm that you did.

As usual, you're wrong again.

From the very begining I stated that the photo was taken from the 6th fairway.
If you'll reread posts numbers 1108, 1125 and especially post # 1137 you'll see how wrong you are.
Here's my quote from post 1137:

The photo is taken from a point at the begining of the 6th fairway to at most, the begining of the elbow of the fairway, looking across # 4 up to # 2 green and # 3 tee.


Try being accurate when you state my positions

At some point you realized how ridiculous that position was (I would love to take credit for your change of heart but can't seem to remember who or what you credited with the shift) so you you moved your camera position to "somewhere near the tee end of the 6th" which was great because you were at least moving in the right direction because it's quite clear to anyone who's ever been there that this was not a picture from the 6th tee pointing anywhere.

Again your ability to accurately recollect is seriously impaired

Now you're out to the elbow. Which is GREAT! We agree on that.

I started in the 6th fairway, toward the 6th tee, to the elbow.
If you'll look at Google Earth, you'll see how close those points are.
I never started at the 6th tee, that's just wishful thinking on your part.


Where do you think the center of the picture is?


2nd green, 3rd tee

What do you think the white path is?

A white path/road

 What do you think of David and Bryan's elevation analysis about a lack of hills beyond the 3rd tee that would be visible from this area?

I haven't read their exchanges on that issue

Also of supreme importance...how much of a drop in elevation do you think it is from the 6th fairway (say 125 yards from the green ) to the house at the end of the lake just below there?

What part of the house, the roof or the foundation ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Was it honesty or intelligence at play when you presented and April aerial photograph as being from the winter?

Absolutely.  That photo was a photo that Bryan Izatt used when he compared the foilage in August to the lack of foilage in April.
The photo I used was the same photo Bryan used.  It's an accurate depiction of the lack of foilage.
Why didn't you chastise Bryan when he used it to depict the absence of leaves on the deciduous trees ?

Was it honesty or intelligence that had you demanding that the Brown and Shelly captions are identical?

I never made that statement, that's a lie on your part, caused no doubt by your inability to recollect accurately.

Go back and reread posts #'s 1108, 1125, 1134, 1144, 1146, 1158, 1159 and 1163.
They are clear in that I distinguished the text of the captions
Your problem is that your memeory stinks

Is it honesty or intelligence behind your continual declarations that the entire property from corner to corner was covered by impenetrable jungle-like forests and underbrush while at the same time telling us Crump knew the land from having hunted through these same impenetrable jungles for years?

I NEVER declared that the ENTIRE  property, corner to corner,  was covered by inpenetrable jungle for years.
That's a BLATANT LIE on your part.

Why hunt through the impenetrable forest when so much more manageable land is right nearby?

I answered that question for you previously, you just can't remember a thing.
Because, that's where the game is, in the thick of the forest, not sitting out in the open waiting for the hawks, fox and other predators to get them

Why do you think Bryan's picture reveals a much greater percentage of deciduous trees than yours?

I USED BRYAN'S PICTURE the one he used to show the area void of leaves on the trees
You're the dolt that doesn't realize I used Bryan's picture, the one he used to show the land with no leaves on the trees

As far as my asking you about Crump being on an Eastbound train...keep in mind that I was laughing at it possibly being another of your ridiculous qualifiers to questions you want to discuss inside a very confined context.


No you didn't, you asked it to challenge how I KNEW that Crump was on an Eastbound train,
You also made the statement that it didn't matter what direction the train was moving, displaying a complete lack of knowledge of the visuals provided or impeded by the landforms when you're heading East versus West

The AWT article hadn't been posted in months and I refreshed my memory soon after...is that the best you got? It makes no difference which direction the train was headed.

That just show how ignorant you are when it comes to the landform and it's presentation to a passenger sitting in a train moving at 60+mph, going East versus West/b]

[JESII]

I hate to say it, but responses to 3 week old posts don't get read when they're 75 posts past...

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Before you call Jim a dolt you should get your facts right.

Why do you think Bryan's picture reveals a much greater percentage of deciduous trees than yours?

I USED BRYAN'S PICTURE the one he used to show the area void of leaves on the trees
You're the dolt that doesn't realize I used Bryan's picture, the one he used to show the land with no leaves on the trees

MY aerial that YOU used:



MY aerial that Jim was referring to as to the percentage of deciduous trees:



They are different aerials from different sources.  

Think before you slur.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I used YOUR aerial, the same aerial you used to make the comparison between Pine Valley in full bloom and Pine Valley absent any leaves.

Obviously you felt that your original aerial, without the leaves, adequately depicted Pine Valley with no leaves on the trees, as it would be in the winter, that's why you posted it, to compare it to Pine Valley in full bloom.  So I thought if it was good enough for you to present, to depict the property without leaves, that it was good enough for me to use.  I didn't know that there was a selective qualifier

I believe that the second aerial was posted subsequent to your original post.

If your first aerial was good enough for you to use to make your comparison, and Jim didn't  complain about it,  it seemed good enough for me to use.

Or, is there a double standard, that depends on which side of the train story you adhere to ?

 

[JESII]

Regardless of what you thought your intentions were why don't you try to explain the percentage of deciduous trees to the right of the 6th hole...and keep in mind that the trees around that house inside the elbow are 60 feet below the fairway/green heights.

[JESII]

To add to the clutter, here is the "US Topo" for the Clementon quad.  The US Topo USGS digital replacement for the old paper quads.  This one is dated 2011, but the legend indicates that the data came from the NED, 2001.  I don't know which data set they were using in 2001, but I doubt it was the 1/9 NED.   The 1/3 NED maybe? 

David,

I believe this is one of the pieces that lists the 6th fairway and 3rd tee at close to the same height. Before we debate that I'm curious if you think this is accurately overlayed. I don't know how to do it so I'm not criticizing but some it seems like the topo is on a slightly larger scale than the Google Earth image. Do you have checkpoints to line up? The 110 and 100 ft contours are pretty close to each other near the 18th hole and the tracks do not drop or rise 10 feet that quickly. What do you think?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I didn't overlay it, the USGS did.  It is part of their new digital map product wherein their topos are available in digital and the overlay with the aerial is one of the layers available.  I believe Bryan posted the same topo without the aerial.  I suspect though that it ought to be a fairly accurate overlay as it ought to correspond with a very detailed coordinated grid system.  It ought to be better than the one where at the NJ Atlas site was just lining up the paper maps over the aerials. That said, I don't know for sure if the two layers are perfectly accurately overlaid.  It is a new product and may not be perfected yet.  One shortcoming of this new system (and one I suspect they will correct over time) it is difficult to tell the source of their information, how it was compiled, etc.

One more thing, I think Bryan and I have both already mentioned this, but this particular topo doesn't seem to be extremely nuanced (for lack of a better word.)  My guess it is  that computer generated smoothing has taken place, based solely on data points and not looking closely (or at all) at an aerial.  So the data points used as the basis for the contours might be extremely accurate, but the contours themselves slightly misleading.  Counter-intuitive I know but that is what I think may be happening on this particular topo.

Did you understand my explanation to you above about the relative elevation differences and why they present a visibility problem?

[JESII]

Did you understand my explanation to you above about the relative elevation differences and why they present a visibility problem?

Yes but you didn't address the entire spectrum. You merely addressed two singular point, the elbow of the 6th fairway and the current 3rd tee. The 6th hole ridge could have been from as much as 150 yards West of the corner and the 3rd tee could have been on the middle of the current 2nd green. This would move the distant hillside several hundred yards to the East. Does that make sense to you? You also didn't address an elevated camera...as has been your position from the beginning.

If the camera was on the current 6th green on a 20 foot high tower looking over the current 2nd green what would be in view?

[DMoriarty]

Jim, I addressed the two points because that is what is at issue to me.   The caption explicitly mentions the 3rd tee, so I don't get this shifting the photo to exclude the third tee.   The "spectrum" has to work all the across the spectrum because the hillside in the back is visible all the way across.   From the beginning you have been fairly certain that this was not a photo from the 6th green as that would be looking straight down the gut of the ravine.  I took your word for this, and I sure hope you are not going to start gerrymandering your first-hand impressions of the site to try and make the photo work when it does not jibe with your impressions.   

Was there a twenty foot tower on the sixth green?  When?

Look Jim,  I feel kind of silly arguing with you about this, but you keep bringing it back. I've never been there.  I've explained from the beginning exactly why it doesn't make sense to me, but I was hoping that someone would bring forward information that would make sense to me.   By that I didn't mean for you guys to start messing with your understandings of the angle as you understand it, or building towers, or pointing the camera at a different angle.

It could be that there is a perfectly good explanation for why the caption doesn't make sense me, yet no one has hit on it yet.  Or it could be we just don't have enough solid information.  If you and Jim want, you can place this speculation about different angles and towers in this second category --it my be correct, but as it is speculation and moving away from the original issue, and I doubt I will buy into it, nor would I have any basis to buy into it at this point.

I don't think the conversation has anywhere to go from here, so how about we just say that I am wrong and you are correct, but for reasons yet to be adequately explained or understood?  I'll go on silently wondering how it could be what the caption says it is, and you guys can declare whatever victory you think appropriate, no matter how pyrrhic.   Maybe some cold day in the depths of winter I will fly out and, and the risk of being shot by the ghost of Crump's childhood past, sneak onto the property and have a look.  Probably not, but the mere idea ought to enough to start the resumption of regular patrols by the old Philadelphia "Posse."

Merry Christmas to You and Yours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you've got a car, why would a train be easier? Especially if you're not where the train started...

Also, why would the house of a 3200 acre estate be on a road large enough to make it onto a map?

Jim,

You can't be serious with that question

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regardless of what you thought your intentions were why don't you try to explain the percentage of deciduous trees to the right of the 6th hole...and keep in mind that the trees around that house inside the elbow are 60 feet below the fairway/green heights.

Percentages as of what year ?

1912 ?

2012 ?

Or any particular year in between those two years ?

Out of curiosity, how would you be qualified to to evaluate any answer ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I hate to say it, but responses to 3 week old posts don't get read when they're 75 posts past...

I didn't know there was a time limit for addressing questions.

And, in a prior post I indicated that I would address your post at a later date, which is what I did

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Before you call Jim a dolt you should get your facts right.

I did, and when you originally posted that aerial I asked you to pay special attention to the FACT that PINE trees dominated the land next to the RR tracks, something you conveniently ignored, because those pines would block the view of a passenger regardless of the time of year he rode past Pine Valley on the train.  Why do you suppose they called it Pine Valley.

And remind us again, exactly how many times have you physically inspected the property ?

Why do you think Bryan's picture reveals a much greater percentage of deciduous trees than yours?

I USED BRYAN'S PICTURE the one he used to show the area void of leaves on the trees
You're the dolt that doesn't realize I used Bryan's picture, the one he used to show the land with no leaves on the trees

MY aerial that YOU used:



MY aerial that Jim was referring to as to the percentage of deciduous trees:



They are different aerials from different sources.  

Think before you slur.

[JESII]

David,

Merry Christmas to you as well. I took the last couple days off after my post on the 24th.

Regarding your post 515: I'd be thrilled to drop this conversation because I've said from the get-go that the pictures don't reveal nearly enough to make absolute pronouncements but that the landform matches the view one would have sans trees today. You've repeatedly said it's geometrically impossible and if anyone could provide a new thought on it you may understand. You reject my opinion on it. Fine.

I brought it back this one time because you addressed me in a post a page or two back that I never responded to and wanted to do that. Let me know if you want to drop it or not.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I think we all understand each other so I don't really think we need to keep belaboring the points.

[JESII]

I can guarantee you not many understand Patrick...but fair enough.

[Bryan Izatt]

One more deed to add to the history.

As you will recall, George Crump bought the core 184.31 acres property that became Pine Valley from the Lumberton Sand Company in October 1912 for $8,750.

Lumberton, in turn had bought the 184.31 acres in May of 1904 for $3,593.40 from Joseph S Kratz and Ida L Fentin who were executors and trustees under the last will and testament of Jonas Bowman, then deceased.

In an effort to determine if Crump or his family had an interest in the property before that, I have searched out the deed where Jonas Bowman acquired the property.  It turned out to be a convoluted transaction.

In 1892 Jonas Bowman launched an action against the St Albans Land Company regarding a mortgage on the same 184.31 acre property.  In November of 1892 he obtained a writ of fieri facias from the New Jersey Court of Chancery that instructed Henry J West, Sheriff of Camden County to seize and sell the property to pay Jonas Bowman $15,451.33 and "taxes" (fees?) of $103.14.

The property was duly seized by the Sheriff, advertised for sale in December 1892, and sold by "public vendue".  Turns out that Jonas Bowman was the high bidder at $9,100 and purchased the property on December 30, 1892.  It appears that he took a bit of a loss in the process.

The Crump family had no interest in what became the Pine Valley property going back to 1892 and earlier.  One more nail in the coffins of Uzzell and Nunneville?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

You edited this reply because you originally had your facts wrong and TEPaul pointed that out to you.

So, let's not get too carried away with your sleuthing.