[JESII]

David,

I'm surprised you think the timing of the swap is really important to unwinding this whole thing.

Considering what we know today, I see it as the most important unknown.

For example, if we were to discover an asset that proved it happened prior to the November Land Plan Map was created it would give us a much clearer picture of just what was going on at NGLA.

I read Jeff's post listing the data points supporting a 1911 timing and need to read it again to formulate a response but it certainly didn't seem to hit the target directly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

While you are correct that my last post was intended to ease me out of the discussion (and perhaps put others out of their misery) ending this rehash is not the same as stifling discussion or limiting research.  Nor are you correct that I am afraid of something.  Broadly hinting that I have sinister motives - or worse yet, that Merion does - isn't right, IMHO.

I look forward to seeing any new research anyone comes up with.  It would seem, as a practical matter, that it not come from existing participants since any new info seems to just be automatically put into the false category by one side or the other.

But, if you like, you can start the new round by providing all those phone records you purport exist to back up your contention that Philly and CBM were burning up the long distance lines in 1910.  That would be a real addition to the historical record if you could pull it off and actually find that kind of thing!

Jeff,

Support of the concept that CBM and his associates NEVER spoke on the phone to anyone at Merion regarding the golf course for a period of over two years defies all common sense.  But, then again, common sense isn't so common.

But, I understand why those who deny  telephone communication between the parties have to deny the existance of those phone calls.
For to admit to them, forces the acknowledgement of CBM's more detailed involvement in the project.
Ergo, some don't want the records found.

As to the phone records from Ardmore, PA to NY, they very well may exist in the MCC or Merion archives.
Doubtful, but possible.

As to how you could retrieve them from other than MCC or Merion, if they still exist, one would have to know the name of the carriers in existance in Southampton, NYC, Ardmore and Philadelphia, circa 1909-1912, and then pursue that aspect.

I know of individuals, involved in golf course design and construction, who communicate with the interested parties, on a daily basis today.
Why would you expect any less in 1909-1912 when travel was so much more difficult ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

It doesn't go against common sense, unless you just assume that there was some sort of agreement between CBM and Merion to for him to keep working on the project before the land was purchased.    I believe he did what the records said he did - come over for a day to consult on whether the property was suitable for a first class golf course. Anything else is an assumption, and one that goes against the record, no matter how you cut it.

If you presume he was an advisor, as they all said, and that they recorded all of the important contacts with him rather than just some of them, then you could certainly question it.  And I do.  I have always wondered how we can know, absent anyone saying they intended for CBM to route the course, why CBM would waste a minute until they had the land parcels locked up.  He was, after all, both busy and working for free, which both suggest he wasn't going out of his way to secretly route a golf course for Merion.

You could also wonder why Wilson, in a tighter time crunch in 1911, as construction approached, and with some very specific questions on soils agronomy, etc. chose to write to Piper/Oakley.  At least it establishes a pattern of how he worked.

Even Wilson's mention in the first letter to Oakley that he had been in contact with CBM could be a reference to the first letter, where CBM suggests he contacts Oakley for soil samples, and not some other contact.

So, your common sense just doesn't have enough or any backing with the historic record.  And, we don't know that you exactly have the worlds largest quotient of it regarding architectural history!  Let me repeat - if there is no record, your common sense is merely an assumption.

David,

Since Saturday Night Live has been mentioned here, maybe the proper reference is to Emily Leittella, who, upon learning she had some facts wrong (hearing Sax and Violins rather than sex and violence, and wondering who would be against that in movies) would just say......Oh, never mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Knowing CBM's personality, do you think he viewed the Merion project in a casual or disinterested manner ?

If he was involved at the early stages, visited the site and had his social contemporaries from Philadelphia come and visit him at NGLA and if he wrote about the potential and quality of the course, do you think he abandoned his interests with his last visit ?

Do you think that he would have an ongoing role ?

I guess the answer depends upon whether you're in the "Merionette" or Moriarty camp.

I find it difficult to believe that he totally disconnected himself from the project.
That his sole involvement was the sum of two on site visits and the hosting of members of the committee at NGLA.

But, you may feel otherwise.

You may feel that he stopped by on occassion, offered some suggestions, said, "come up and see me sometime" and was done with the project.

Whigham's eulogy contradicts that scenario.

But, you've made your position clear, you essentially side with the Merionettes.
The vibe you've given off is that you don't want David to be right.
I believe you stated that CBM's total involvement was for him to:
come over for a day to consult on whether the property was suitable for a first class golf course.
And that's your perogative, I just happen to disagree with you.

And, I feel that there's more to be learned about Merion and that there's no harm in perpetuating the discovery process.

Think what would have happened if there hadn't been contemporaneous books detailing the creation of Sebonack and Atlantic.
Think of all the unknown issues that would remain open today and 100 years from now.

And, even though the books are contemporaneous, see if you can gleen if there was any electronic communication between any and/or all of the interested parties.   

Because the books are mostly silent on the issue, should we adopt your position that no electronic communications ever took place because we can't find the records ?

"Common Sense", Jeff, "Common Sense"

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  

I think in your first sentence I think you mean "is really unimportant to unwinding."

I think the timing of the swap is important and my analysis sound, but my major theses do not depend on it one way or another.  Jeff and Mike seem to think it is some sort of a lynchpin, but it isn't.  Even if we completely disregard the swap, the evidence of CBM/HJW's extensive influence over the initial design is overwhelming.

I understand what you are getting at by calling the issue the "most important unknown," but this is only because we already know most everything else with a much higher degree of certainty.  I recently looked again at my IMO for the first time in a long time, and it is easy to forget now just how much information was in there that had never before been brought forward.  The Barker routing, CBM/HJW's crucial role in the decision to purchase, the Real Estate angle, the actual parcels involved, the acquisition of the Dallas Estate, the Lease of the RR property, CBM/HJW's role in planning the course, H.G. Lloyd's important role throughout, the structure of the purchase, a proper understanding of what they meant by "to lay out" a golf course on the ground, a better understanding of Wilson's actual involvement in the project, an more accurate understanding of the NGLA meeting, a thorough refutation of the Wilson Legend, the early articles indicating that most of the course was based on the great holes abroad, the extensive incorporation of CBM tells into the design, etc.  All of that (and more) isn't really in dispute any more.  Basically the IMO and the work Tom MacWood and I did before and after has rewritten the early history of the East Course.

And out of all of that (and more) about all these guys have left to try and fight is my explanation of the timing of the swap. They don't seem to realize, though, that no matter the outcome of that particular battle, they've long ago lost their war.
===================================================

Jeff, If "oh, never mind" is what you say when you have your facts wrong, then perhaps you should apply it to your post above to Patrick.

- The Minutes do NOT provide a log of CBM's work at Merion, so assumption that Merion "recorded all of the important contacts with CBM" is incorrect.  Merion's Board Minutes did not chronicle the day to day activities relating to the creation of the golf course. CBM's later letter to Wilson regarding agronomy matters does NOT show up in Merion's Minutes.  Nor do communications planning the NGLA visit.  Nor does the conversations and/or communications Wilson had with CBM prior to his writing Piper and Oakley.  And the records indicated that CBM was dealing directly and personally with Lloyd and later with Wilson, not with Merion or its Board.  

- Your claim that CBM's June 1910 letter mentions Oakley/Piper is mistaken. Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter mentions that "Mr. Charles Macdonald spoke of [Piper]" but CBM's June letter mentioned neither Piper nor Oakley.  So we know that there were communications beyond those mentioned in the Minutes.

- Generally, your insistence on treating each documented instance of CBM's involvement as an independent, isolated incident walled off from the rest is likewise unrealistic and defies common sense.  This was a process that began in the summer of 1910 and continued through April 1911 (at least) and CBM and HJW were involved throughout the process.  

- Your conjecture about how CBM would not have done anything prior to the actual purchase is contradicted by the record itself. If he wasn't willing to "waste a minute" until the land was locked up, then why in the world did he and Whigham travel all the way to Philadelphia in June of 1910 to go over the property and advise Merion what could be done with the land?  Why did they meet with the committee while there? Why did they provide cost estimates? Why did they follow that up with a letter?   For that matter, the land wasn't even officially and finally "locked up" by MCC even at the time of the NGLA meetings, so what was he was working with Merion on the plans at NGLA, and following that up with yet another visit a few weeks later?

-  This last theory seems to be based on your belief that no decision was made regarding the purchase until November of 1910, but your belief is a bit off.  Mid-Nov. 1910 was when the announcement was made to the members, but Merion's Board had determined to acquire the 120 acres on July 1, 1910, the day after Lloyd received CBM's letter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Surely you see there are different levels of proof offered for all of David's statements.  When it comes to Wilson's trip, he found the manifest,  no manifest for Wilson when he supposedly went, and a few other quotes suggesting that Wilson went later to prove his point.

That sort of research easily meets the academic standard Terry and JC Jones are discussing and can easily be accepted because he has two or more corroborating documents, which is one of the general requirement for acceptance by normal standards.

As to the land swap and a few others, he found no documents specifically saying what he wanted to say, perhaps one that MIGHT say what he wanted it to say, and not much in the way of corroboration.  In fact, is some cases, if you go looking for corroboration, you find many contradictory documents, and David has to go into many verbal histrionics to make the point. 

At what point are all those assumptions or your "common sense" simply rationalization of a predetermined premise?  It reads that way to me, and I have little doubt that anyone with training in more formal approaches would question the validity of that land swap premise due to lack of a clear main authentication and lack of supporting evidence.  One statement of varying interpretations and much conjecture, rather than two or more clear cut historic documents just isn't as or even very convincing. 

What I don't understand, aside from the pettiness and anger that has arisen between certain parties on this subject, are we surprised that some points of  comprehensive IMO proposing many, many changes to conventional thinking on Merion are accepted more than others?  Do we have to argue for either 100% or 0% behind David?  So, he didn't bat 1.000%.  What other similar historical piece has batted 1.000%? 

Wouldn't we expect most work of this nature to be  accepted at varying levels, depending on the strength of the proof offered?

David,

BTW, your dismissal of the land swap theory of minor after it being a major cornerstone of your IMO strikes me pretty much the same way as my comments strike you. 

To answer your question, we know Merion asked and he accepted the first, and two other contacts.  That is why he agreed to come over....its documented!  Pretty simple stuff, and no conjecture at all on my part.  And yes, they asked him if the land was suitable, he told them it was, and they started moving forward.  Again, documented as fact.  They also took until August to get the Dallas Estate.

IF, and I mean IF, CBM did anything you conjecture about in this period, it was after August IMHO.

BTW, to me the biggest unknown stems from that snippet about the 1924 rerouting getting the course to what the committee originally wanted.  It seems possible that they inquired about that property to the south at the same time as the Dallas Estate to acquire all possibly necessary land.  Or, they had their 120 with the Dallas Estate (and RR property) and felt that was good enough to go, discovering the problems and possibilities only after they started routing in January and asked the powers to be to look at that extra land in January or so. 

But, we just don't know.  No sense adding even more conjecture at this point.

[Bill_McBride]

What's the over/under on page count for this latest Merion thread?

[Terry Lavin]

Perseveration is defined as:

"Psychiatry. the pathological, persistent repetition of a word, gesture, or act, often associated with brain damage or schizophrenia."

From the medical dictionary:


"Uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.

 The tendency to continue or repeat an act or activity after the cessation of the original stimulus."

Colloquially referred to as a person who has only one button ("repeat") on his internal clicker.   

[DMoriarty]

Terry,  Your definition pretty well defines your involvement in the topic, doesn't it?

You've said your piece.  We all know your opinion by heart.  But that doesnt stop you from periodically popping in to repeat the same point over and over, again and again.   Why are you repeating yourself?  Is your button stuck?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()