[TEPaul]

"Again Tom, I am trying to deal with facts, not pure speculation or stretched theory.  HDC brought him to Merion, he had inspected and sketched out a routing by June 10, 1910.  By the way, the Philadelphia Inquirer described the Haverford Development Company as recently incorporated later that same month."


Is that right?

I guess that's just another good reason not to put much faith in the accuracy of some newspaper reports which are indirect, to say the least. If that were true then how am I looking at a legal document right now that mentions the Haverford Development Company exactly a year earlier? Maybe you should take your piece and go back and vet the whole thing for the realiablilty of some of your "facts".

For some odd reason it looks like a whole lot of people today and even back then are off an awful lot by just about a year, perhaps including Hugh Wilson when he mentioned in his 1916 report that his "Construction Committee" was formed in early 1911.

Are you aware that in Wilson's 1916 report he really did make a mistake in what he reported about the beginning of construction of the West course by a full year? And that mistaken date I guarantee you really is a "fact".



"First Tom, it is not an admission because I wasn't there.  And you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my essay.   Merion worked with Macdonald and Whigham over Barker once M&W became involved, but that doesnt mean that all of what Barker's routing was discarded."

You know, David, one of the things that seems to be a clear implication from your piece is that the Men of Merion during 1910 or whatever were sort of just standing around on that ground doing or thinking nothing at all about routing or design other than to get the pro of GCC in there one day to tell them what to do and when they apparently didn't like that just waiting around again until Macdonald/Whigam could come down from New York and tell them what to do and think.

I'm trying to be fair-minded and objective about your piece but it's getting very illogical in a whole lot of areas in my opinion.

Essentially you've got Lloyd and Francis 'tweaking' some Macdonald/Whigam routing you're speculating exists when you say the committee they were appointed to with Wilson as its chairman wouldn't even be formed for some months to come and you just seem to forget about Hugh Wilson entirely by never even mentioning him in 1910 as doing anything at all.

I know you have a point by point argument you're trying to construct here but along the way you really are asking most all of us to sort or suspend common-sense and logic. 
 

[JESII]

Tommy,

I would not want you to suggest something like this to me...but why don't you and Wayne write a "white paper" on the development of Merion...I would think the collection of facts between the two papers would be pretty impressive, and just might bring all the crap speculation on both sides to an end...and besides, you haven't got four little kids nipping at your heels like I do, so you probably have all the time in the world...

[Mark_Fine]

David,
I do not have time to engage in a detailed discussion on this topic (I probably can't add too much to what you have done anyway), however, I have done quite a bit of research on Barker for a Master Plan I completed for Arcola CC.  If you want to discuss offline (maybe we schedule a time), I'd be happy to talk with you about my research.
Again, great job with your write up.
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Tommy,
I would not want you to suggest something like this to me...but why don't you and Wayne write a "white paper" on the development of Merion..."

Sully:

At the moment and after really reading through David's piece very carefully a couple of times and then going back and thinking about some of the component parts and points he makes to support the next point and so on and so on, I would have to say some "White Paper" or "counterpoint" to David's piece by us on here just really isn't necessary, in my opinion. At least not now, and frankly it seems to me to be getting less necessary as time goes on.

This thread should be a lesson and education to people who are interested in this subject in this detail because we have his piece right here in front of us and Wayne and I particularly are simply going through it piece by piece and supplying critique and other information and dates to some of those he's used and I think we are both analyzing and in some ways refuting what he seems to have taken and fact as well as refuting some of his logic.

Do not forget,  David still has plenty of ways to respond intelligently and directly to us right here on this thread. I hope and encourage him to do that and not be evasive of our points and questions or just dismissive of them because he feels he may not have an appropriate response that supports his assumptions and conclusion. If he feels he can't supply an appropriate response to our points and questions, I think he should say so on here.

We are also aware that during the course of this discussion on this very thread we are also supplying him with plenty of material he may never have known that he still can use in his PART 2 to this piece. 

Have you ever heard the legal term "discovery"? Well, I feel we are giving him a ton of "discovery" on this very thread.   

[JESII]

I wasn't thinking of it as a counter point...and maybe it would be impossible for it not to work out that way. What I was thinking is that you guys have a wide breadth of information that David may or may not have and putting your timeline on paper might help the rest of us just fill in any gaps each side has individually.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I wanted to thank you again for your piece and compliment you on the massive research you've undertaken.   It's great that you've brought out many areas to consider, as well as shared information that many of us were not aware of.

I also want to help participate in your call for serious critique and discussion, and hope to do so as we progress.

At present, given the volume of material you've presented as well as all of the interconnected events and timelines, I want to give it the proper study that it deserves.

Much like Peter, I think your presentation of new information has led me to many more questions than answers and before I delve further, or take time asking them without really thinking them through, I'd just like to once again congratulate you on putting all of that material together, as well as share one little tidbit.

In doing research on Cobb's Creek with Joe, Geoffrey, and Co., one of the things that was always strange to us was that today's wonderful 17th hole wasn't part of the original routing from 1916.  (It was created around 1927), and one of the reasons that Robert Lesley later mentioned to explain the long walk from the original 17th (today's 11th) to the 18th tee was that a tract of land that they didn't think was available for golf turned out to be usable.

I didn't know what that meant, and perhaps still don't, but in looking at the original 1915 drawings, there was a piece drawn through the middle of the design that had border lines intersecting the property.   I didn't think much of it until coming into ownership of a 1927 map of the property from the city, which showed that land being owned by the Pennsylvania and Western Railroad.

I'm wondering if the railroad just retained ownership in the case of Merion (and Cobb's), but granted "playing" rights on those parcels?   It seems to have been the case, but it may have taken a bit of time and legal wranglings before that became entirely clear.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

I enjoy research so didn’t mind finding the scrapbooks on my own.  I thought you might have meant that Merion had the scrapbooks and I was surprised by that. 

They are such a tremendous repository of your club's history that someone associated with the club ought to consider at the very least indexing the scrapbooks so then the club can at least know what is in them.   The PHS most likely does this with important family papers and things, so maybe if they understood the significance of the course to golf they might assist in creating a thorough index.  One would think the existing cricket club might have some interest in them as well.

My guess is that they are full of information that MGC and MCC would love to have.  My research was miniscule and from a distance and my scope very narrow but even then I stumbled into some things that might have I wider appeal.   For example, here is the menu for the 1911 Annual Dinner, which looks like a great menu for a dinner 100 years later.   Is Sweet Potatoes, Merion still on the menu?



Anyway, I'd be glad to give Merion what I have, but many of my copies are pretty poor (the photo above is an example) and copying again would make them worse so it may be better to get a clean copy yourselves.   Later I will try to come up with a list of what I have, and will try to get it to you a usable copy or exact cite if you don’t have the same thing.

By the way, can someone who knows the course explain the perspective in the above photo?

As for the property records, I have a number of newspaper clippings (digital clippings) that address many of the parcels of property, or are related to the developers, one of whom was the developer of Oakmont, I think (not the course, the neighborhood.)  Plus the final transaction is discussed in detail the letters.  And somewhere I have the records of the small transaction involving Haverford College, that is a really rough copy and it may make more sense to go next door and take a clean photo or get a clean copy.  Again we can figure that out.

I have a number of deeds related to Merion.  Some of the dates will be of interest to you and may shake up your timeline a bit, such as the transfer of the land to the club.  I'll share them with you if you like, but they are very large and too oversized for copying  (11X17).  I can put together a summary if you like--actually Meredith Jack (Beau) has a good one that I can compile for you.  Whatever info you have related to the land transactions will be of utmost importance to the Archives.  Your essay is known to several members and we all want whatever primary information you have that we do not.  So if you would be so kind to send them, that would be great.  We look forward to part 2.

I’d like information on the purchase, but I imagine probably not in the detail you would like to put together for the club.   My concern is more with tracing the changing shape of the land, especially early on.

The newspapers reported the sale was completed in January 1911, but as for the date of the actual transfer of land to Merion, I think there may have been some sort of bridge in the deal with Guarantor(s) and a payment plan with them, so the actual title may have transferred some months later.  I'll take a guess of July 1911, but if not then how about December 1912?   But I think Merion had possession by mid-January 1911.

Perhaps together we can work out the timeline of the property transfers.  Do you have the old railroad atlases?  I’ve done some overlays on them, and they may be useful.  They help with identifying the property.  By the way, do you know that at one point Hugh Wilson owned one of the lots on Golf Course Road?  Not important but I thought it interesting.

I never said that Merion bought any property in 1909.  I've maintained all along that the Haverford Development Company bought the land in June of 1909.  It is hard to read and hard to make out the complete extent of the property from the handwritten deed, but it was very extensive.

I assume this is the tx reported on June 29, 1909 in the PI.  This one also mentioned that HDC had been recently formed.   I mistakenly wrote to TEPaul that this news report was from June 1910, he was quite excited to have found an error (even though I didn’t use the article in the essay) and I hope he doesn’t take this news too hard.

Anyway the article lists it as a 70 acre parcel and I think I know which one it is, but it could have been a different one.   One paper reported that, pre-HDC, a few of the developers already had control of a 140 acre parcel which was once the Johnson farm but then called the Haverford Terrace controlled by the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co.   I think the land in the tx in the paper around this time was once the Davis estate.

As for the Brooklyn Eagle booklet from 1916, I have copies of the entire piece.  An original went for nearly $10,000 at auction in the last year or so.  But for research purposes, the copy I have is fine.  I will send you a copy if you like.  By the way, the hole by hole drawings were done by Flynn.

Great, I have a few pages from the auction catalog, but it was a bit out of my price range for research. 

We may have to prioritize some of this because I have spent way too much time trying to get the essay out before heads started exploding online, and I need to cut it back.   It seems like there are two issues:  Your critique of my essay and Merion’s Archives.  There is overlap but it is far from complete.   

Give me some idea of the order you want this stuff and I will do what I can.  I imagine the first things are the November 1917 letters from the club and various parties relating to the purchase, as they will answer many of the questions regarding the exchange with Merion.

DM

[DMoriarty]

Peter,

Those are good thoughts/questions and I have considered them myself and am still working out answers.   And it is even hard for me to give my thoughts because I have a feeling I will be shouted down by some with more experience at both.   

But in my limited understanding it comes down to a few things.

1.  One cant judge either course by what it became aesthetically today, because they were both much different in 1910-1912.
2.  I do not believe that Macdonald was as brutish with the land as people think he was at NGLA.   There were only a handful of holes based on templates, and even these were not exact.  Much of the course at least to the green was taking what the land gave him. 
3.  In my very limited experience, both courses impressed me with their tremendous use of natural ground slope as an integral component to the strategy of the hole.  Nos. 5 and Nos. 7 are the examples that immediately come to mind at Merion.   This to me indicates that the person who routed each was taking what the land was giving him and making the most of it.    With a few exceptions, of course.

Anyway, I am still working on many of your questions and will let you know if I figure it out.

______________________
TEPaul

1.  Your explanation of why you misled us by claiming that Merion bought the property  in 1909 rings hollow and is entirely inconsistent with the record.   
2.  My mistake.  The newspaper article was from June 1909, not June 1910.  Either way, I did not use it in the essay.
3.  As to the remainder of your points, my essay more than addresses them.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I wanted to thank you again for your piece and compliment you on the massive research you've undertaken.   It's great that you've brought out many areas to consider, as well as shared information that many of us were not aware of.

I also want to help participate in your call for serious critique and discussion, and hope to do so as we progress.

At present, given the volume of material you've presented as well as all of the interconnected events and timelines, I want to give it the proper study that it deserves.

Much like Peter, I think your presentation of new information has led me to many more questions than answers and before I delve further, or take time asking them without really thinking them through, I'd just like to once again congratulate you on putting all of that material together, as well as share one little tidbit.

In doing research on Cobb's Creek with Joe, Geoffrey, and Co., one of the things that was always strange to us was that today's wonderful 17th hole wasn't part of the original routing from 1916.  (It was created around 1927), and one of the reasons that Robert Lesley later mentioned to explain the long walk from the original 17th (today's 11th) to the 18th tee was that a tract of land that they didn't think was available for golf turned out to be usable.

I didn't know what that meant, and perhaps still don't, but in looking at the original 1915 drawings, there was a piece drawn through the middle of the design that had border lines intersecting the property.   I didn't think much of it until coming into ownership of a 1927 map of the property from the city, which showed that land being owned by the Pennsylvania and Western Railroad.

I'm wondering if the railroad just retained ownership in the case of Merion (and Cobb's), but granted "playing" rights on those parcels?   It seems to have been the case, but it may have taken a bit of time and legal wranglings before that became entirely clear.

Mike,  Thanks for the kind words.

I assume that Merion got an easement from the railroad, or leased the land, or made some other arrangement, but was trying not to speculate about this sort of thing so I tried to stick to what I knew: 
1. The land wasnt part of the original purchase and was not part of the HDC land. 
2.  The atlases show that the RR still owned the land  a long time after.   The 1937 Atlas still shows the land as belonging to the RR.

It could be that the RR atlases were wrong, and that Merion bought the property right at the beginning, but they dont appear to have done so.    These questions could all be answered by a title search on the property.  I think I said that in my essay.   

David,
I do not have time to engage in a detailed discussion on this topic (I probably can't add too much to what you have done anyway), however, I have done quite a bit of research on Barker for a Master Plan I completed for Arcola CC.  If you want to discuss offline (maybe we schedule a time), I'd be happy to talk with you about my research.
Again, great job with your write up.
Mark

Thanks Mark, I'd love to talk to you about Mr. Barker.  It seems like he is someone that is worth looking into.   Let me get this stuff out of the way first, and we'll set something up. 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul
1.  Your explanation of why you misled us by claiming that Merion bought the property  in 1909 rings hollow and is entirely inconsistent with the record.   
2.  My mistake.  The newspaper article was from June 1909, not June 1910.  Either way, I did not use it in the essay.
3.  As to the remainder of your points, my essay more than addresses them."



David:

Is this the way you plan to deal with a number of posts that deal specifically with many of YOUR individual points which are ASSUMPTIONS (read=speculation) on your part and which placed together lead you to come to your article's conclusion that Macdonald/Whigam ROUTED and DESIGNED Merion East? Are you really going to dismiss every one of them with the automatic response that they are speculation and not fact while you speculate liberally about what dates and events MEAN and with what YOUR OWN characterizations of people (particularly Lloyd, Francis and Hugh Wilson) MEAN?

I hope in the future the contributors to this site demand that you stop rationalizing away the critiquing of your piece this way. I think most of the contributors to this site who are interested in the history or Merion understand that Wayne and I understand this place, its history and particularly all the people who were involved in it back then quite a lot better than anyone else on here does. Do you want to use that knowledge to get to the truth of the original creation of Merion or do you really want to continue to deflect it the way you have so far on this thread as exampled by that last response to me.

I thought, this time we were all going to do better than that. So far, apparently not. I would ask that in the future on this thread you just stop deflecting me with this automatic response that I'm speculating and not producing fact. I've just produced some fact that you dismiss as hollow or inapplicable to your piece. I don't think so.

I call on the contributors to this thread to demand that you stop this harping against what you call our speculation when you are doing the very same thing on here. I call on them to understand that a certain amount of speculation at first is completely necessary in the critiquing of this piece and is the very way that people like Wayne and I who really do know and understand these people better than you do use to find the roads to go down to FIND WHERE THE TRUTH LIES!

What you have said on this piece, your conclusion, is that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed the holes of Merion East!

That is a very serious statement in the fairly sophisticated world of those who really do studying architecture as most of us on here do. If that really was the case, if that really was a fact, that would certainly lead me to believe that Macdonald and Whigam should probably SHARE almost co-equally architectural attribution for Merion East.

I don't know what others on here feel but I can tell you, at this point, I am not even close accepting something like that merely on the strength of your article here---eg "The Missing Faces of Merion."

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty concludes in his piece "The Missing Faces of Merion".

"Contrary to golf legend, Wilson did not travel to NGLA in order to prepare for his study trip overseas. If this had actually been the case, then there would have been no reason for his Construction Committee to travel to NGLA with him, yet they did.  Wilson and his Committee traveled to NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build Merion’s new golf course.  By the time of the NGLA trip:"

In my opinion, it is complete speculation, and frankly of a fairly dangerous order, to ASSUME that all Hugh Wilson did was sit around Merion for a year or more while the site at Ardmore was being analyzed by others, including other members of his own club (read Lloyd and Francis from DM's report ) and do nothing other than wait patiently with his thumb up ass to be appointed THE CHAIRMAN of the committee that was charged with creating Merion East. Come on GOLFCLUBATLASERS, do you really believe THAT? If so, how gullible do you really want to be perceived? The idea that is truly implied in this piece is that Wilson is waiting patiently for likely over a year while the club is analyzing the Ardmore site without doing anything to be handed a routing and design plan by Macdonald/Whigam, so he can be allowed to spend two days at NGLA in January to be told how to just BUILD the course and be labeled for all time to come as an amazing complete NOVICE golf architect!

"1.                   Merion already had a routing plan.  Francis had been putting the finishing touches on the layout plan months before, when he resolved the routing issue."

I will believe that when I see it, certainly a routing plan from Macdonald/Whigam. We are being asked to believe that for probably the entire year of 1910 MCC Golf Association is sitting over in their existing course in Haverford waiting for the pro from GCGC (Barker) to drop in for a day in June to tell them what to do, and after that just waiting until practically the end of the year for Macdonald/Whigam to come down from New York and route and design their new course and tell them they can now buy the place.

They all knew Charlie Macdonald. They knew where to find him and what he was doing at NGLA. Don't you think it's pretty likely they went up there and talked to him in 1910 about what they were thinking of doing at Ardmore, after all they were looking at that site perhaps from mid-1909. Why are we being asked to believe they just did nothing and just waited through all of 1910 for three guys to spent about three days at Ardmore in that entire year---and particularly after David Moriarty tells us that HDC told MCC that they wanted this course done quickly?       If it's possible that Barker and Macdonald/Whigam routed Merion East during those three or so days in 1910 I think it's probably a hell of a lot more possible that Hugh Wilson and the people who made up his committee did it----as the history of the club has always claimed.

Oh, of course, I forgot, Lloyd and Francis weren't sitting on their asses, they were out there tweaking the routing while the guy who would be their chairman just sat on his ass waiting to be asked to do something trivial like oversee BUILDING the damn golf course in few months time. And why are we being asked to believe Francis and Lloyd were out there tweaking? Good question! We do know to put them out there then David Moriarty can explain away the fact that Francis made that change with Wilson and his committee.

"2.                   Macdonald and Whigham had already been integrally involved in the planning process.  They had inspected site and provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land.  Merion’s Site Committee had recommended the purchase based largely upon Macdonald and Whigham’s written opinion, and the Committee’s report to the Board had encompassed Macdonald and Whigham’s views."

I guarantee you I will definitely accept the conclusion of this piece when I see a Macdonald/Whigam routing and hole design plan for Merion that's the way the course was originally built, but not until. I also would like to see this board report stating the above that conclusively. 

"3.                   Merion had already purchased the land."

So what?

"4.                   Hugh Wilson had just recently become involved in the project.  Shortly before the trip he was appointed to the Construction Committee, and there is no evidence that he had been involved before his appointment."

To me that is the most egregious speculation of what Wilson likely did in this entire "White Paper", and also by far the most illogical.

[TEPaul]

David, I'll be happy to stop speculating but not unless or until you do! 

By the way, I, for one, think it would be really cool if it could be proved that Macdonald/Whigam produced the routing and the design for the original Merion East. And why wouldn't I think that was cool?  I bet Merion would too, and why not? They were cool with understanding a lot better Flynn's really significant part in what the course would later become.

[D_Malley]

that is a cool picture, which to me looks like it was taken from just off the left side of the current 17th green.

[TEPaul]

"I didn't think much of it until coming into ownership of a 1927 map of the property from the city, which showed that land being owned by the Pennsylvania and Western Railroad.

I'm wondering if the railroad just retained ownership in the case of Merion (and Cobb's), but granted "playing" rights on those parcels?   It seems to have been the case, but it may have taken a bit of time and legal wranglings before that became entirely clear."


MPC:

This may interest you when it comes to the railroads, and Merion, and perhaps even some land on a part of the course that belonged to a railroad (P&W) for a number of years.

It has been said in some of the history of Merion that much of the money that paid for the golf course in Ardmore came from some members of Merion who were referred to as "railroad magnates." Wayne and I even suspect that Flynn's partner, Howard Toomey, may've come to Merion in the context of railroads and those supposed Merion "railroad magnates". Toomey was apparently a railroad construction engineer!

What does that mean, do you suppose? What could it have meant in the context of this particular thread? That's a good question too but I suspect that some of those men may've virtually controlled those railroads and I'm sure that you may be able to intuit what that may've meant if that land was not actually purchased by Merion for many years.

When I once tried to mention who some of these men from Merion and clubs like that around here I believe David Moriarty dismissed it by saying 'we aren't that interested in the lives of the rich and famous'.

We aren't? Well, if he's trying to figure out exactly how Merion Ardmore came into being as far back as 1909-1912 maybe he should be more interested in who they were, what they did and what they controlled.

He says he's not that interested in the lives of the rich and famous but the fact is that is exactly who some of those people were and so they probably should be researched to find out the "FACTS" of how they may've influenced aspects of the finding and creating of Merion East.

I'm not that interested in doing that in-depth research on those people because I don't exactly see its real relevance to who did the architecture of Merion but maybe he's interested in doing that kind of research on those people---as it's bound to be interesting and probably very relevant to how the course and club at Ardmore came to be. I do have a general idea though of who they were and how they managed to control things like railroads, or real estate, or banking and brokerage or shipping or whatever.

Next, even though I don't know it for a fact, I'll tell you what I THINK Horatio Lloyd Gates was basically about as it relates to Merion Ardmore.

[wsmorrison]

Yep, that's the left side of the 17th green looking backwards towards the tee through the quarry.  I have that menu, most of the pictures on the other menus come from early Golf Illustrated photos. 

David,

I did see on RR maps that a H Wilson owned property near the 15th green.  I have always assumed it is our Hugh Wilson.

[TEPaul]

MPC:

I can't attach photos on here so today at some point I'll ask Wayne to do it.

I'm aware that Horatio Gates Lloyd (and family for a few generations) had a very famous place (house and gardens) apparently in Haverford. The place was known as "Allgates" and it began as a 25 acres estate and eventually expanded to seventy five acres. It became famous with The Garden Club of America for it's massive and magnificent gardens and for its famous building architecture (Wilson Eyre).

It was begun in 1910 (pretty coincidental and potentially relevant date, don't you think?   )?

In this photo of this magnificent estate one can see what appears to be a golf course in the distance. Was it Merion East or West? I don't know for a "FACT" but I surely suspect it probably was considering all the other coincidental and contemporaneous facts.

So who the hell was Horatio Gates Lloyd, this guy who most certainly seemed to be a mover at MCC for years and perhaps one of their financial facilitators or even their primary "angel"? Was he, in fact, Haverford Development Company (HDC) at this time? Did he own it or primarily control it?

These are all very good questions, and if their answers are what I suspect they might be they will probably tell a very interesting story of the creation of Merion Ardmore, the club.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Horatio Gates Lloyd was the scion of an old Philadelphia family, related to the famous Revolutionary War general, Horatio Gates.  Lloyd worked for Drexel and Company, joining it in 1910 (at the time he built Allgates).  Eventually, he would succeed Edward Stotesbury (he had one of the largest homes in the country) as senior partner in the late 1920s.  Allgates, in Haverford Township, was on Coopertown Road, very near Merion East.  The property owned by the Haverford Development Company bordered Coopertown Road. 

[TEPaul]

MPC:

I don't really know what early Merion's Horatio Gates Lloyd did with himself for a business but I do know this about the family from essentially a wedding announcment of perhaps his grandson or more likely great grandson George Wingate Lloyd to one Janis Devereux in which they held their wedding at this famous Horatio Gates Lloyd's estate "Allgates" in Haverford in 1986.

And that is that the bridegroom's grandfather, one Horatio Gates Lloyd (whether that was our HGL's son or whether that was our HGL) was a partner in the firm of Drexel Burnham.

If he was that may help explain some influence he may've also had over railroad property used by Merion for so long (before eventually buying it).

The fact is Drexel & Co that was begun in Philadelpia around the middle of the 19th century became perhaps the biggest provider in America of capital to construct and blanket America with its railway system. This was because this age was the time America had no central bank and these so-called "financiers" like Drexel & Co essentially filled that roll.

There is a little book done about a dozen years ago about the somewhat mysterious and apparently intensely private founder of Drexel & Co that's called "A. J. Drexel, The Man Who Made Wall Street."

If you read it you can see that in many ways A.J. Drexel did exactly that. He also was the man who actually "made" perhaps the most famous financier in American history, the 19th and early 20th century's J.P. Morgan. The fact is even if few knew it Drexel was the only man in the world that Morgan answered to.

Did Horatio Gates Lloyd also make a fortune as a partner of Drexel & Co? Perhaps he did. I do know that it seems the famous architect George Thomas' father certainly did with Drexel & Co. allowing architecture's George Thomas to do the things he did and in the way he did it always----eg never accepting a nickle.

Will David Moriarty dismiss things like this, again, as just "the lives of the rich and famous" and not interesting or relevant to golf clubs and golf course architecture? I certainly hope not! 

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Take that last line out of your last post at once. It serves no purpose at all on here and apparently just leads people like David Moriarty to make fun of me and consequently not take this interesting background information on some of these people seriously. He, or anyone else on here should take this kind of information seriously because it really does allow all of us to understand so much better not just who these people were but what they were and how and why they could and very likely did do the things they did for some of these clubs and courses in how they came to be.

[Dan Herrmann]

If you're interested in the book that Tom mentioned:  http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Made-Wall-Street/dp/081221966X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209127855&sr=8-1

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Even though you didn't say please, I removed the reference anyway as per your request, er order.

[DMoriarty]

In mid November 1911, through the subscription offer made by Lloyd and mentioned in the essay, Merion members (of which Lloyd was one) had the opportunity to bring their aggregate ownership interest in HDC up to approximately one-half of the the total stock in HDC.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Since I wouldn't want this site to feel the need to buy that book, even though it's been a while since I read it I will give you the highlights about the title that is in some ways probably pretty appropriate.

Even though few in the public seemed to know him or his name because he was so intensely private (he never spoke in public or even showed himself in a public way) he really was the man who made J.P. Morgan and part of the reason was to give his company a public face via Morgan.

But he also set up Morgan in NYC with Drexel & Co by building the famous building, 23 Wall St., which was for many, many years considered to be the iconic "look" that was the physical Wall St. It was that really interesting looking wedge-shaped building I think most of us would recognize. Obviously, Drexel's point was to make a major statement with that building and in many ways it put Wall St the place on the map for the rest of time.

But the thing that should interest this website and this particular thread is through the massive power and influence of a firm like that one and the people who worked for it we can see how it allowed a number of them to do what they did in golf and architecture. Thomas was one and Lloyd may've been another.

[Michael Blake]

What I look for when determining the validity of a research paper, as simple as is seems, is the abundance of pertinant primary sources as well as the non-usage of secondary sources.

I've read the piece a couple of times and there are lots of primary souces but some secondary sources.  I plan on re-reading.

What first caught my attention is something that Tom Paul alluded to in some of his posts:  Speculation.

When I read sentences like these I can only dismiss the specific argument they are trying to make as speculation and not proof.

"The most logical explanation...."

"Perhaps they were...."

"Even if.....it is unlikely that......"

"Apparently....."


To meDavid M has done a great job synthesizing some rare primary sources to prove that certain people visitied Merion and were involved with it somehow.

How involved they were is still unclear, IMO.

[TEPaul]

"In mid November 1911, through the subscription offer made by Lloyd and mentioned in the essay, Merion members (of which Lloyd was one) had the opportunity to bring their aggregate ownership interest in HDC up to approximately one-half of the the total stock in HDC."


And something like that could very logically explain why, when Francis went to see Lloyd in the middle of the night to discuss a land-swap, between HDC and the club, Lloyd could say: "Consider it done!", and quarrymen could be blowing the top off the front of the green on the famous 16th "quarry" hole the next da.

The point his people like Lloyd in his position probably didn't need to concern themselves with time consuming things like deed transfers and mortgage encumbrances. People like Lloyd apparently was are just bigger than small potatoes like that. So that kind of thing should potentially refute some of the rationale in your piece (the time consuming details of deeds and mortgage encumbrances).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()