TePaul,
Thanks for the answer.....or part of it anyway. I didn't need yet another recitation of the shakiness of the DM theory that you could have cut and pasted from a dozen or more of your previous posts.
I fail to see how you couldn't consider the official Merion map of the property a source document, for David or anyone else.
However, I also would consider the date that Lloyd moved into AllGate a source doc in figuring out when the Francis land swap idea occurred. And, that would seem to indicate that it was a post routing, during construction time frame (i.e summer 1911) That of course would depend on the exact meaning of your phrase "settled." When did he buy the property? Could he have started construction before he had the land finally secured? You wouldn't think so, but then again, he was the type of guy who could have Merion's 16th green built before the club controlled that property......
As Wayne says in the next post, debates on when the land swap took place, when Lloyd became involved with HDC, what kind of guy Lloyd was, etc. don't really prove anything about the central point of contention - how and how much was CBM involved in the design of Merion? While all those details fill in the back story somewhat, there are still a lot of different ways to explain them that are plausible under any scenario regarding CBM. Really, all of it seems to be talking around the main point.
I reread the Whigham article on CBM last night. It doesn't seem to overly promote CBM. In some ways, it kind of said if he didn't move golf forward in America, someone else might have. The mention of Merion Cricket Club by Whigham is kind of odd in that context, because there was no need to embellish CBM in death. His life was full.
I kind of wonder if, just like the process of gca was in its infancy, the process of attribution was also somewhat ill defined in those days. Whigham mentions CBM going to PV early, but no more. He went to Merion (or had them at NGLA) three times. Could it be that in Whighams (and CBM) mind, that "the third time was a charm" in their minds of deciding what they designed and what they didn't, whether that was right or wrong by current standards?
With Raynor on hand for his other designs, Bahto describes how he did all the advance work, CBM corrected all the drawings, applied the famous template holes and of course, Raynor built them. Its quite possible (George could confirm, perhaps) that CBM didn't spend more than three days on many of his designs other than the National! Thus, over time, he believed he had designed it. Or, at least Whigham did.
In any case, CBM and Whigham apparently spent three days at Merion. The question to me, regardless of how modern day historians might credit the design (or older day historians) is what did CBM recommend to Merion and how closely was it followed initially?
We know it had to be initially, because of all the subsequent changes to the course up until 1925 or so. And for those, I think all credit Wilson. I would like to know how much (if any) the basic routing was CBM, even if a land parcel came available later that changed the routing. It is simply an interesting back story, and could be factual if a few more documents were found.
OT, but I recall the Merion bunker threads a few years back. Many were questioning whether Merion should have restored to 1929-30, the Jones tourney year, instead of going back to the very beginning. Well, given the routing changed from the very beginning, I guess it was a wise choice to restore it to no earlier than its earliest perfected routing and it makes sense to restore it to whatever they did to the course to make it tournament ready.
Wayne,
While I am applying modern day logic again, which may be flawed, the presence of a golf course now can inflate lot values by 25-100%. If about a third of the land was given over to golf, then HDC would have come out even if land values raised 50%, I think, which is within range.
I do note that the HDC subdivision around Merion has substantially larger lots than surrounding subdivisions. In todays world, you can always make more money on smaller lots, and most developers back then in the area must have felt the same. The larger lots, then, would imply that the whole deal was for the ultra wealthy who wanted to live near their club, although a roster of club members addresses then would be needed to confirm. On the surface, I think the Lloyd influence was to build a subdivision for guys like him. Maybe total profit wasn't the only goal. Also, with larger lots, that land swap may not have been as critical to be a 1:1 deal. I mean, if a few lots along Golf House Drive are 2.98 acres instead of 3, (or whatever they are) then they still have greater value than a lot in a non golf subdivision.
As always, I could be wrong. But, TePaul, I am not a sucker at the hands of DM. I can read, write, and think. And there are some points in DM's essay that make sense. I could deconstruct some of your "logic" quite easily as well, because its clear that most of it is emotional investment in the Merion legend staying status quo. At some points, you mention being interested in truth. At others you admit that your research is really aimed at discrediting DM's theory. I doubt good research can be had with a predetermined result in mind.
And, to restate my current opinions one more time - I seriously doubt that any research will credit all of Merion to CBM. Too much evidence to the contrary. I do think that the routing modified by the land swap, etc. may very well have been 50-99% MacDonalds original thinking. But, we just don't know until we see his actual proposals. Again, I could be wrong. But, what the hell, all of us could be wrong!
