As you know, I suspected that you had access to the Sayres Scrapbooks, which I located 5 or 6 years ago at the HSoP and brought attention to this website several years ago. . . . If the scrapbooks proved of use to you, and I helped steer you to them, I am pleased.
Yes and No. They were very useful, but I had never seen you mention them prior to the other day. In fact I was surprised to see that mention. I figured Merion didn't have them, because these scrapbooks go a long ways toward answering so many the issues that we have acrimoniously debated in the past. In fact I was planning on including their location with the other item I am sending you. Surely, if you have had the scrapbooks all along you would have brought this key source material to our attention.
So Merion must not have them, or Merion's are different, or Merion's are not a complete copy. If Merion doesn't have them, they really should try to get them copied, as the they seem at a glance to be absolutely incredible.
Do you have them or not? If not, what do you need?
How did you access the material as it is not digitized and they restrict on site viewing? As for the Morris Library, I've been there as well, but found very little information on Merion's golf history except a wonderful little club year book with a routing map of the Haverford course. As for the Haverford College library, is that where you got access to old Philadelphia newspapers, or was that from Joe Bausch?
I havent been to the Morris Library, or to Haverford College since I took the LSATs, but I am sorry to hear that they do not have more on Merion. I thought that Haverford College had the Cricketer articles. If it wasn't them it was one of the other local libraries. As I acknowledged in the piece, one article came from Joe Bausch. (Thanks again Joe)
What I am most curious about (among other things) is where you got the correspondence between Barker, Macdonald and Whigham and the club. You cite letters and reports. You also seem to have access to notes on Board meetings and committee reports. Where did these come from? Where did you find information on the Site Committee (I've seen it referenced as another committee).
Not sure to which specific information you refer. But as I say in the essay, much of the information about the transaction came from the letters from the board, and they are in the scrapbook and include letters from the board, the Barker letter, a letter from the Site Committee to the board, references to the Macdonald letter (which I note in the paper was not included,) and the Lloyd letter. There are also Lesley letters and other letters, all from around the time in question, along with clippings, the Findlay review, many other articles, the 1911 Program with the back of the Alps green in the photo. It is a treasure trove of information.
Where did you obtain detailed information on the transactions of the Haverford Development Company?
It was pretty complicated, even involving communication with a distant relative of one of the developers, but ultimately I tracked down the names of some of the developers and examined their transactions both as individuals and entities, and also got the names of owners of the property from 1908 Railroad Atlases, and traced the property transactions involving both, and cross-checked these with each other. I found evidence of many of the transactions in the real estate section of the Inquirer and local newspapers, and in press accounts and advertisements. Most of stuff I didnt use, except to lead me to other information. I think I identify the sources I used, and would be glad to give you more detail on those if there is anything specific you need that I havent given you. But much of this is confirmed in the scrapbooks.
Also, I found documentation from a later exchange involving Merion and Haverford College in the Haverford College records, and from those I could determine the original encumbrance and purchase dates for the original purchase. The information also contained legal descriptions and blue prints of that exchange, and that exchange also involved the supposed land in the land "swap." The transaction itself is relatively small and I think involves access issues as much as anything, but if I recall correctly the easement language accounting for golfers and golf balls is interesting.
Except for that these documents are off point on this issue, but if you want these documents, I will try to dig up the specific citation so you can get a copy for the Merion Archives. I have copies of them, including the blueprints, but poor quality copies, and I am sure you could get a better one for Merion than a copy of my copy.
I found their original purchase was in June 1909. I've suspected that if Wilson went overseas, it was around that time and not 1910, certainly not in 1911.
This is another curiosity to me. The other day you mentioned that Haverford Development Company purchased the property in 1909. It surprised me that you wrote this, because I recall when you found these at the end of 2006,
and you or TEPaul wrote that it was Merion who purchased the property in 1909. It was probably TEPaul, because I recall that he was very excited because this implied that the trip could have occurred much earlier. But you definitely must have thought the same thing, because you did not set the record straight. I believe I asked about the specifics of the transaction, like the name of the entity who purchased the land, and what land was purchased, but nothing was forthcoming.
Not sure why you guys told us that Merion bought the property in 1909? I suspect that Lloyd may have been involved with HDC then, and that maybe his name appears somewhere on the purchase documents, but that certainly does not mean that
Merion bought the property. What was the the logic behind thinking and/or posting that Merion bought the property in 1909? Is Lloyd mentioned in these purchase agreements?
I did not look for additional deed transfers (I didn't know there were several, but of course my research focus dealt with Flynn's activities at Merion), but perhaps you went to the DE County Seat and obtained them. They are very interesting and I'd be happy if you shared the info you came across on the HD Company.
Unfortunately, I didnt set foot near Philadelphia. As I said, I figured out the identification of the developers in the press and owners of the property from old railroad atlases, and tried to trace the ownership through newspaper transaction records until I got to Merion. Later, the scrapbooks confirmed much of what I had found.
I should have my critique prepared in a week or so and will send it to you offline for you to consider. I would do your report a lot more justice in a peer review process if I had access to your primary materials in their complete form. I'm not out to embarrass you or to be confrontational. I want to get at the truth as well.
Same for me here. Just trying to get to the truth. No need to send me your critique off record, as I will not be embarrassed if there are flaws in my essay. In fact, given my limited resources and lack of access to much of what I could have used, it will surprise me if there aren't flaws. That is one reason I came back, to throw it out there for all to see and identify the flaws. It can only help it in the end.
I don't have an emotional investment in Hugh Wilson's role at Merion. We've known all along that there were a number of men that gave advice, we simply did not (and perhaps do not) know the extent that advice was translated on the ground. Maybe part 2 will address these issues. However, the most important story in all of this is the significant design changes that were implemented almost immediately and were ongoing for the next 20-something years. We have a great deal of documentation of this era and we know how important Wilson and Flynn were to that process. We hold Hugh Wilson in the highest regard for the man he was (that is where I am emotionally invested) more so than the architect he became. His other great contribution to golf cannot be ignored, and that is his efforts in turf grass research and agronomy.
The thing that most disappoints me about the past tone of these Merion threads is that many have come to believe that I have got it in for Hugh Wilson or Merion Golf Club. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would not devote this much time to this if I didn't have a profound respect for Merion and its history. As I said in my paper, to find it worthy of study is one of the highest honors I can give it.
As for Hugh Wilson, I agree with you that he is a great man for golf at Merion and for American golf in general. I tried to express that as best I could without diverging too far outside the scope of my paper but reiterate it here in case that did not come through loud and clear. I would just hope that we can continue this discussion and analysis keeping his spirit in mind; by that I mean we should students like Wilson, always searching for answers and always sharing them with the world of golf.
As for your work on the early changes at merion, I'd love to see your primary resouces as our interests overlap.
For one example, The Brooklyn Eagle did a booklet for the 1916 open with not only diagrams of the holes but also with descriptions. Do you or Merion have a copy of those pages? If so I'd love to take a look at them.
However these findings play out, they certainly do not correlate with Hugh Wilson's report and that of Alan Wilson. If you are right, they must be very wrong and I just don't see that happening as yet, considering my review to date. However, I am keeping an open mind and am very pleased with your efforts and look forward to Part 2.
I disagree. Hugh Wilson's essay was my primary source, and much of what he wrote provides a linchpin of my analysis. So I am glad to hear that you agree that he is a reliable source on most accounts. As for Alan Wilson, his report is second hand, but even it is accurate for the most part, except where outlined in my essay.
But I'd rather address your substantive issues than vague allusions to problems, inconsistencies and problematic conclusions. Let me know what I do do to help on this front.
Along these lines, and meaning no offense, do you think you can refrain from warning, cautioning, or scolding readers who might have found my essay compelling? That is, if all you couch your warnings in are vague allusions to unintentified errors and problems?
The reason is that it is intimidating, and curtails participation and open discussion. Plus, as of yet, you aren't offering anything substantive. Don't you think we ought to keep it substantive? Surely readers do not have to wait for your critique before they consider my substantive analysis, do they?
Poor young Tommy Huckaby probably won't even dip his foot back in the water for years.
Cheers.