[Tony_Chapman]

Mike -- I, too, am confused with you 1909 date. Are you considering the "committee formed to look into the Haskell Ball" to be one in the same as the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association? Maybe they were, I don't have a clue. But, according to merioncricket.com:

"In 1910, the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association was formed, and purchased land in Haverford Township, Delaware County, for developing the Club's own course."

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Are you referring to this?


As for other possible interpretations, if you care to dig back through the archives you will find that I have provided them in detail in the past.    But they don’t matter much to this discussion.   


Macdonald and Whigham were most likely at Merion between June 10, 1910 and July 1, 1910.   

_____________________________________
John and Wayne. 

I don’t know that we ought to assume that Tillinghast was in-the-know about this at this early date.

It often appears to be the case that these blurbs in articles appear right around the time of some sort of club announcement, or shortly after.    Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December.   No details were given from M&W’s letter and no routing specifically mentioned, so I am not surprised that the magazine blurb sticks to general comments. 

Plus, it is by no means clear that M&W had actually drawn up a routing at this point.  As I note in my essay, the sent their views on what could be done with the property in a letter, so it doesn’t sound like they sent a drawing.   
 
 
« Last Edit: Today at 12:43:04 am by DMoriarty »  Report to moderator    Logged 


David,

I'm still not understanding why you contend that M&W were "most likely" at Merion in June/Jule timeframe?   

What is the evidence to support that?   Am I missing something fundamental that you presented?   I'm serious and sincere.   I don't know.
 

Gents...unfortunately, I have a bunch of work to do, but will check back later this evening.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike.   "The other possible interpretations" sentence relates to another issue and is entirely irrelevant.

June 10 is the date of the Barker letter.   July 1 is the date of the site committee report.   The site committee report discusses the M&W visit.     Unless the site committee report was entirely misleading as to the order of events, and I have not reason to think it was, then the order was:

June 10 Barker letter, then M&W visit, then July 1 cite committee report.   

[TEPaul]

"I asked a few simple questions above regarding the supposed early Hugh I Wilson trip.   No one has answered."


David:

Where are they? I'll answer them unless you don't feel like reading my posts anymore as you've continued to say on here. I sure spent the time necessary to read your essay on Merion a number of times and that isn't exactly short. But I'd be happy to supply any answers I can on Hugh Wilson and his trip or trips unless at this point you feel you know more about the Wilsons, the people of Merion and Merion GC than I do. 

[JESII]

David or anyone,

The June 10th letter from Barker to the speculative developers (Connell...) and the July 1 report from the Site Committee make me think the two groups (speculative developers and merion committee) were operating completely independent of one another...maybe I missed the overlap in your paper or in these threads so forgive me, but if they were operating independently why would CBM have been privy to Barker's routing plan?

[TEPaul]

"June 10 is the date of the Barker letter.   July 1 is the date of the site committee report.   The site committee report discusses the M&W visit.     Unless the site committee report was entirely misleading as to the order of events, and I have not reason to think it was, then the order was:

June 10 Barker letter, then M&W visit, then July 1 cite committee report."



David:

Thank you very much for that. That certainly does help clear some possibilities up. That information was not in your essay that I can find and something like that is just the kind of "timelining" that's completely necessary to analyze the progression of events in Merion East's creation and also your essay for a whole lot of reasons.  

As far as the site committee report being misleading as to the order of events, I really can't see how it could be for what I'm looking for if it was dated July 1, 1910 and it describes what both Barker and Macdonald did and said when they were there at Merion Ardmore.    

I'm not all that up on all these newspaper reports probably because I think although they can be helpful for a lot of reasons they can be misleading or confusing too, but some primary source document like a Merion site committee report I doubt would be.

I just don't ever recall seeing a newspaper article that mentions Macdonald/Whigam were there before around November 1910 but on the other hand that isn't exactly what the Tillinghast article said. All he said in his Dec 1910 article was they were there 'recently'. That must have meant they were there before July 1, and it's probably pretty logical to conclude why it was never made public before around December 1910 (the date of Tillinghast's article)---eg MCC did not want it to be made public because they were in the process of trying to buy land without creating unwanted competition which could kite the prices.

Frankly, that probably also pretty logically indicates around the middle of 1910, if not well before, a guy like Horatio Gates Lloyd must have been pretty much in control of most of that land and probably HDC too because I doubt otherwise a couple of 'ambitious real estate developers' (Connell and Nickolson, right?) probably couldn't be kept quiet about land they controlled and were trying to sell for the best price to them possible. Obviously that would not have been in their interest but it certainly would have been to someone like Lloyd who was perhaps facilitating things for his MCC on his own or with a group of his Merion friends.

And that's precisely why I think it's very important to know who Lloyd was and what he was as it begins to make sense in what was happening for the club at particular times. Maybe you think discussing the lives of the rich and famous is totally irrelevant to all this but I sure don't and I never did, as you know.

You wanted "facts" not speculation and I think today we explained to you who Lloyd was and who he was and his wealth pretty much is a fact.

I could be wrong but I believe I may've seen another name connected to all these goings-on with Merion, a guy by the name of Stotesbury. He was also a partner in Drexel & Co or Morgan & Co which were essentially two companies which had once been one---first Drexel, the Drexel/Morgan in NYC and then Drexel as one company and Morgan as another. The men who were the "partners" in those companies were worth millions. To go out and front the money for some club they belonged to and cared about was a drop in the bucket to people like that----and that's a fact, not speculation!

[JESII]

Tom,

I don't think David said the Site Committee report mentioned Barker...just M&W.

It loks like Connell brought in Barker and so Barker's letter would have been to Connell.

Was Connell part of HDC or Merion?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't think David said the Site Committee report mentioned Barker...just M&W."

Sully:

Maybe not, although I recall he said that essentially the site committee or MCC's board basically turned down whatever Barker provided.

"It looks like Connell brought in Barker and so Barker's letter would have been to Connell."

That's what somebody said on here. I think it may've been Moriarty. Maybe Barker did give his letter or plan for a course to Connell but somebody had to have given it the site committee or MCC otherwise why was it done at all? Moriarty's essay said it was because a couple of 'ambitous real estate developers' (apparently Connell and Nickolson) were attempting to work a quick deal with Merion and the course and seemingly Barker's plan was to provide MCC with that, but it seems like MCC didn't think much of it and that's why they went to Macdonald next.

Furthermore, it sure does look like Connell, a guy who was not part of Merion paid Barker because Alan Wilson's report distinctly says; ".....a "Special Construction Committee" DESIGNED and built the two courses without the help of a golf architect."

But you know, Sully, some people on here think Alan Wilson was some "know-nothing" dope who hadn't seen any of this and was just Hugh's brother who was asked by the first Merion historian who was preparing Merion's first history book to write some glorifying eulogy to his brother about the creation of Merion instead of what actually happened! And not just that but everyone who'd been part of all this for the last twenty years or so was in on it too! 

"Was Connell part of HDC or Merion?"

I would stake my life on the fact that Connell was not part of Merion but he may've been one of those who created HDC unless Horatio Gates Lloyd did. I do have a real estate document that mentions either most all this land or a significant part of it on June 24, 1909. I think a page is missing but it mentions the people who owned some of this land at that time and before 1909 and Connell was one with 10/25th of it. It also mentions parties of "The first and second and third part". In real estate contract parlance that indicates three separate "parties" to this particular real estate contract (they called it an "indenture").

It seems like one "party" was the land owners before MCC got involved, another "party" may've been HDC and the other party might have been this thing mentioned called "The Trust and Title Company of Philalphia". Nickolson was the president of the latter.

It looks to me like a guy like Horatio Gates Lloyd may've been setting up a trust to either buy the land or more likely buy up the stock in HDC which may've been the corporate entity that pre-existed this June 24, 1909 contract that had the land as its asset.

[TEPaul]

"David or anyone,
The June 10th letter from Barker to the speculative developers (Connell...) and the July 1 report from the Site Committee make me think the two groups (speculative developers and merion committee) were operating completely independent of one another...maybe I missed the overlap in your paper or in these threads so forgive me, but if they were operating independently why would CBM have been privy to Barker's routing plan?"

Sully:

I'd say yes and no. I think Connell and whomever his group was (HDC?) who owned this land previous to MCC getting interested in it had nothing to do with MCC. They were just trying to sell the land. Merion's site committee chaired by Robert Lesley and with Horatio Gates Lloyd on the committee was looking for land to move to and instead of waiting to raise the money through the club itself, I think Lloyd and perhaps a few of his friends apparently all from MCC just stepped in and did it themselves for the club for a year or more until the club could work everything out.

The Barker plan wasn't generated by MCC, it was apparently generated by Connell. But obviously he had to give it to MCC so it was up to MCC to show it to Macdonald or not.

I'm sure Connell et al couldn't have cared less who designed the golf course, as all they were trying to do is facilitate the sale of their land. So instead of selling the land to MCC directly it looks like they started selling it to Lloyd and perhaps some of his MCC friends who were buying it both for Merion and perhaps for some personal residences for themselves. We do know that in 1910 Lloyd bought 25 acres of it and eventually 50 more and turned it into his famous estate "Allgates" of which in an aerial you can see Merions courses.

Obviously, a guy like Lloyd was a bigtime rich guy and it's kind of hard to say if he just bought the land on his own or through a trust that may've bought up the controlling stock in a pre-existing land company called HDC.

All of this isn't that complicated if you think of what MCC and Lloyd was ultimately trying to do. Moriarty doesn't seem too sure in his essay as to how this played out or when but it seems like he sort of sensed something about it.

The only thing about his essay I find really incredible is he has rationalized that Hugh Wilson was just sitting around doing nothing at all with any of this through 1910 and until he was appointed chairman of the  committee that was charged with designing and building Merion East in January 1911 and then Merion West in 1913.

If Moriarty actually has two guys who would later serve on that committee (Francis and Lloyd) out there working on a routing and design in 1910 then why in the world wouldn't the guy who would be leading them on that committee be doing the same thing in 1910, and logically be doing more of it than they were?

This is the kind of thing that in the real world just makes no sense at all but Moriarty obviously thinks he had to interpret things that way to make Hugh Wilson look like a total novice beginning in 1911.

When we point out the logic of Wilson also being out there in 1910 to Moriarty he just keeps dismissing it by saying we have no facts to prove it. He has absolutely no facts at all to DISPROVE it. So we're using our best logic with all the surrounding events and, I, for one, think he's using some really poor logic with all the surrounding events.

As Tom MacWood said on one of these threads about four years ago when you just don't have concrete facts for everything you just have to use your best logic with all that you do know about surrounding events and we sure do know that Lloyd and Francis served under Wilson on his committee. So why make a total novice the chairman of a committee with a couple of guys who've had some experience under him? In the real word that doesn't make a lot of sense and I'm sure David Moriarty understands that and the only reason he keeps dismissing it is because he also understands it totally weakens his essay and its premises and conclusion.

Moriarty is still railing on about Wilson's trip or trips abroad. I don't think this is about trips anymore. It's only about what Wilson and his committee or even Macdonald/Whigam did at any particular point in time.

[Phil_the_Author]

Several times during this discussion both conclusions and/or offers of proof for certain points have been based upon published information. What I often see happening is a misunderstanding of what is written because this information is being interpreted with a a 21st century perspective rather than one from the day.

As an example, take this one:

"John and Wayne. I don’t know that we ought to assume that Tillinghast was in-the-know about this at this early date... It often appears to be the case that these blurbs in articles appear right around the time of some sort of club announcement, or shortly after.    Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December.   No details were given from M&W’s letter and no routing specifically mentioned, so I am not surprised that the magazine blurb sticks to general comments..." 

The conclusion drawn here is that tilly wasn't "in the know" because the article came out shortly after the announcement to the club so all Tilly was really doing was reporting on the announcement.

That is 21st century thinking. Real-world life in 1910 is that in order for an article to appear in the December issue of the American Golfer as is being referred to above, it would need AT LEAST a two month lead time, and in many cases even more.

As this issues "hit the stands" on December 1st, it would mean that Tilly was privy to the information contained within the future report at the latest by the beginning of October. That is 4-6 weeks before it's being issued to the club.

He was definitely "in the know."

An example like this shows the importance of giving more than usual consideration to societal points that have been made by both Tom Paul and Mike. Points such as the social standings of the people involved and how things were accomplished on a day-to-day basis in their world.

It is ONLY by properly placing oneself in the time one is trying to understand that a proper and correct "interpretation" of an individual's actions be known and understood.

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
Thanks for that consideration. As we both expressed in our IM's there aren't any hard feelings and we are entitled to our opinions."

JeffB:


Of course we're all entitled to our opinions and I sure would never want to stultify that on here but on the other hand what everyone should understand is that some people do get hurt feelings or really disappointed in some people and some of the things they say about certain courses and clubs when they just don't understand them that well. Some of those people really know and love those clubs and courses and we can't just ask them not to feel that way or to say nothing on here to the people who criticize them and the people past and present who know them and love them.

A week or more ago Kirk Gill in a post on here somewhere sort of alluded to this kind of thing. I IMed him that I thought it was one of the best and most honest posts I'd ever seen on here and I told him I'd like to do something sort of off his remarks with a thread on here. Basically this is that very subject.

I'm thinking about how to write it and when I do I'll let you know first thing so you can look at it and tell me what you think.

[JESII]

Phil,

Good point...as to the specific example you used I think David has proven that CBM was at Merion between June 10 and July 1, 1910...what's really interesting to me is that I don't think the Merion Committee were responding to the Barker routing at all when they had CBM take a look. Based on what's been written, it seems like the speculators rightly thought a routed course of 18 holes on the property would make th eland more attractive to their target purchaser so they brought in Barker to do that.

Is there evidence that the Merion Committee even considered the Barker proposal? Or is it circumstantial that they followed CBM's advice, which ws given within a very tight time frame of Barker's report?

[TEPaul]

"Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December."

Phil:

Are you absolutely sure about that? If so, how do you know that? Is that exactly what Tillinghast said or are you looking at something else from Merion? And of course the most important thing is did that November 15th date, no matter who reported it, appear to be the FIRST time Macdonald visited Merion Ardmore?

Certainly what  David Moriarty said above does not agree with that.

[JESII]

Tom,

The meeting of the members was on Nov. 15th. In that meeting the Site Committee reported having spent time with CBM. CBM apparently produced a report for the Site Committee which he dates July 1. That is how David places CBM at Merion between June 10 and July 1. Seems pretty reasonable to me...too reasonable, in fact, for me to think CBM was in any way a reaction to the Barker plan.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Just to be sure I was on the same page as everyone, I spent lunch re-reading the IMO piece.  Frankly, I think the DM piece is pretty compelling as to the routing process.  Given a slower pace, it seems as if the interested parties were working continuously from:

sometime in 1909 to look for land or land options.

June 10, 1910 produce Barker routing on behalf of HDC

July 1, 1910 CBM review for Merion and recommendations.  As per JesII post, I felt it was a reaction to the Barker plan, but it may not have been.

August 14, 1910 - Buy Dallas Estate to lengthen course as per CBM recommendations and possible routing sketch.  Whether or not CBM routed it, look at an aerial and you can see it would be obvious that you couldn't get a championship course on that side of Ardmore without it.  Francis says as much in his recollections.

Nov, 1915 - Land Deal done in principle.   Francis mentions some kind of land swap for the 15th green and 16 tee.  Note that the property map sans routing shows the boundary road there as "approximate location" meaning they all know its going to change just a bit to max out property for both golf and housing, as would be typical.  Apparently, there is enough trust on all sides to go forward, even with this little detail left unsolved.

Somewhere in there, a long term lease of the RR land near the 13th is worked out, perhaps with a wink and a nod, or formally. It really makes no difference, since the course got there.

Golf Construction Committee formed Jan 1911. 

Construction starts sometime before 4/1912 and is about 7 holes done when CBM visits again to assist.

Grassing complete in Sept. 1912.

Your biggest bone of contention here seems to be when Wilson got involved and how much credit he should get.

DM says because the committee was formed in Jan 1911 and visited NGLA it couldn't have been until then.  While the record doesn't state it, I agree with you that Wilson and the committee may have been forming or in place informally before then.  It would have been premature to announce such a committee before the land was acquired, and yet impractical to NOT have one while the routing was going on.  Its no stretch to think they took the Xmas season off before starting the formal planning meetings, but it would still represent more or less continuous work on moving the golf course forward.

To what degree they were involved in the routing, I don't know, but it sounds like Francis was actively involved, as perhaps Conner and HDC to make sure their lotting worked out.  So, you believe that the committee was walking the property, obsessing over little details of the routing, etc. as any golf architecture enthusiast would.  I agree.

Given that Barker and CBM and Whigham were competent, I think many elements of both their suggestions were used in the final routing.

Specifically, I think that the Barker plan probably set the basic L shape (I have stated reasons why I think this is logical from developers perspective) but was too short. 

CBM probably led to the Dallas Estate Purchase. 

Francis claims credit for the idea of the 15th green land swap to make the last five (and best!) holes work better. 

IMHO, there is no doubt that an enthusiastic committee led by Wilson probably came up with a few ideas on their own to assist Francis.
 
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I really feel the club history simply didn't go into as much detail as we would have liked, perhaps because they never thought anyone would care!  Who could know that an internet site like golfclubatlas.com would ever come about, or that in the information age, anyone would ever go back and look up ship manifiests, property deeds, land swaps, etc.  Look at most club histories, and they focus on people, elected officers, grill room additions, etc as much as they do on golf course design principles.

In my mind, this more detailed new information about how the routing at Merion came to be ldoesn't diminish Merion or Wilson one bit.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You misread what I wrote. I didn't state "Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December."

I quoted from an earlier posting. This post had actually been quoted from several times and conclusions were being offered based upon what and when "Tilly " knew.

This is what I quoted: "John and Wayne. I don’t know that we ought to assume that Tillinghast was in-the-know about this at this early date... It often appears to be the case that these blurbs in articles appear right around the time of some sort of club announcement, or shortly after.    Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December.   No details were given from M&W’s letter and no routing specifically mentioned, so I am not surprised that the magazine blurb sticks to general comments..."

My point was that, "Several times during this discussion both conclusions and/or offers of proof for certain points have been based upon published information. What I often see happening is a misunderstanding of what is written because this information is being interpreted with a 21st century perspective rather than one from the day...

"That is 21st century thinking. Real-world life in 1910 is that in order for an article to appear in the December issue of the American Golfer as is being referred to above, it would need AT LEAST a two month lead time, and in many cases even more.

"As this issues "hit the stands" on December 1st, it would mean that Tilly was privy to the information contained within the future report at the latest by the beginning of October. That is 4-6 weeks before it's being issued to the club.

"He was definitely "in the know."

The article that they referenced from December 1910 contains information about the purchase of 300+ acres of land that would enable the Merion Cricket Club to build it's own course on it's own land.

NO WHERE AT ALL in this article is mention made of a report given or to be given to the membership on Nov.15th.

The person who posted this made that inference all on his own and the additional one that he wondered if Tilly really was "in the know" about Merion (and therefor possibly not a reliable source? - my inference from his thought) becuase this and several other articles containing Merion information came out just after announcements by the club.

As I showed in my original post, necessary LEAD TIME to publish the American Golfer magazine would require Tilly, and all other contributors, to be privy to this information WELL IN ADVANCE of it's publishing. In this case Tilly knew about the purchase and plan to build a course(s) for the Cricket Club well before any report was given to the club membership. This shows that contrary to the inference drawn, that Tilly was an "insider" with "insider's knowledge" of events.

So when you ask me if, "Are you absolutely sure about that? If so, how do you know that? Is that exactly what Tillinghast said or are you looking at something else from Merion? And of course the most important thing is did that November 15th date, no matter who reported it, appear to be the FIRST time Macdonald visited Merion Ardmore?", all questions about the supposed report issued on 11/15, you were missing my point.

[Tony_Chapman]

Golf Construction Committee formed Jan 1911. 

Construction starts sometime before 4/1912 and is about 7 holes done when CBM visits again to assist.

Grassing complete in Sept. 1912.

Jeff -- Just so nobody, jumps on you I think you mean that construction starts sometime before April 1911, not 1912. Right?

[TEPaul]

Oh, I see what Phil said---eg that Tillinghast wrote that Merion told the membership on Nov 15 that Macdonald had been there at some point previously. The way he wrote that it looked like Merion told the membership that Macdonald had been there on Nov 15, 1910.

I don't think this thing with Barker is very important to understanding the creation of Merion East. Obviously the seller just got a plan done himself hoping it would speed things up with the sale of the land but MCC probably felt well hell if we're going to move we'd sure prefer to make our own decisions about what kind of course we want.

That's no different than that proposed move of GMGC to the magnificent Ardrossan Farm in Villanova. At first the sellers (the super old-line Montgomery Scott family about which the "Philadelphia Story" was made) told us they'd do it all including providing the course so they got a routing and design done but my club said if they were going to move they wanted to do the course. So they asked me to look into it and I got Coore and Crenshaw and spent about two years on it.

That's exactly how and why I got really interested in golf course architecture in the first place. Bill Coore actually spent a lot of time on that site but I think I must have spent 500 hours on it trying to work things out.

It's just too bad people like David Moriarty or Tom MacWood have never done anything like Merion or Ardrossan or they might understand a little better that a Hugh Wilson was very probably NOT standing around thoughout 1910 and until Jan 1911 with his thumb up his ass doing nothing while people who would work under him later on HIS committee were out there working on the design and routing. Once again, in the real world that notion just makes no sense whatsoever unless Hugh Wilson was in a body cast or something throughout 1910! Even then, knowing the way Wilson was he'd still probably have figured out a way of getting out there and doing it! The guy was some kind of doer, that's for sure but apparently Moriarty has never understood any of that. That is not blaming him at all, simply asking how would he know that?  

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

If some really smart guy like you can get the dates off by a full year than maybe some dumb duck total novice standing around with his thumb up his ass waiting to be appointed to lead it all, as Moriarty says Hugh Wilson was, could get his dates off by a year, huh?

By the way in his 1915-16 report Hugh Wilson did say his committee was appointed in early 1911 and on the next page he said that two weeks after Merion East opened for play on September 14, 1912, things were so crowded the club went out and bought the land for Merion West. In the very next sentence Wilson said Merion began to build the West course in the spring of 1912!   

[TEPaul]

Phil:

Here is exactly what you wrote in post #384:

"Merion reported to the members that M&W had visited the site on Nov. 15, and Tillinghast reports on the visit in December."

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Your timeline is interesting.   Just a few corrections based on what are probably a couple of typos and one misunderstanding.

Nov 1910 - Land deal done in principal

Construction starts sometime around 4/1911.   NO HOLES were done at that time when CB came to visit.   His comment about seven holes going to be as good as anything in the country was pure hyperbole as the construction hadn't even started.

Grassing completed Sept 1911.

Course Opens Sept 1912

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way in his 1915-16 report Hugh Wilson did say his committee was appointed in early 1911 and on the next page he said that two weeks after Merion East opened for play on September 14, 1912, things were so crowded the club went out and bought the land for Merion West. In the very next sentence Wilson said Merion began to build the West course in the spring of 1912!   

Tom,

Well there you go...Proof Positive of his total incompetence! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Yeah, I guess if I wasted my lunch hour reading through this stuff, in which I admittedly have no business contributing, then I could have spent another five minutes and proofread some obvious date mistypes.  I knew we were jumping into the next year, and I sort of double jumped it like HopScotch or something.

Then again,  here we are four months into the year of the rat, and I'm still signing my checks, May 1, year of the pig, so I have trouble keeping my years straight.

That said, I wonder since I agreed with your basic premise if it was possible to acknowledge such, rather than jump into some other esoteric notion about what dates Wilson might have gotten wrong, no?

Maybe he meant he had to reserve his tee time a year in advance because it was so busy?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...perhaps I'm losing it but I don't see how the July 1 Site Committee letter discussed M&W?

David, you just wrote;

"June 10 is the date of the Barker letter.   July 1 is the date of the site committee report.   The site committee report discusses the M&W visit.     Unless the site committee report was entirely misleading as to the order of events, and I have not reason to think it was, then the order was:..."

Yet, your IMO piece states;

"According to Merion’s Board of Governors, the Site Committee had reported on several possible permanent sites, but only one site was both accessible and affordable.   On July 1, 1910, the Site Committee reported that Haverford Development Company had secured a tract of land of “approximately three-hundred (300) acres” and had offered Merion “100 acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the Course.”"  

Wouldn't this 100 acre offer have referred to the Barker routing and proposal?

More from the IMO;

"According to Barker, he inspected the Ardmore avenue site on June 10, 1910, and on the same day wrote, “The land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in the country, such as Myopia and Garden City.”   He also included a sketch of a proposed layout and wrote that course would be ready for play in the autumn of 1911, provided he could begin work immediately.  Haverford Development Company forwarded Barker’s letter to the Merion’s Site Committee, and the Committee reported it to the Board. "

Did the Site Committee's report then discard this idea and go on and talk about Macdonald's in its place?

I can't find that.


Phil,

Isn't the Sept 14, 1912 opening of Merion written up by Tillinghast in the October issue?   I would think longer articles might take some time, but quick blurbs shouldn't have taken six months.

[Peter Pallotta]

Just a goofy aside, but it strikes me that Mr. Barker was one shrewd cookie. If some bigshot ever calls me in for an opinion on the value of his land as a golf course, I'm gonna say:

“The land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in the country..."

If that doesn't get me the gig, I don't know what will.

Peter   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()