[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

You have misrepresented my position again.

You wrote:

First, just like the 1910 Land Plan, you can move that "approximate" western boundary north of Ardmore Avenue anywhere you like west of today's Golf House Road to come up to an exact 100 acres.   If it measures out today at 110, move it a smidgeon right, 90, move it a smidgeon left.   You're still on HDC land and therefore anything becomes plausible.

NOT TRUE.  In the summer of 1910 HDC only controlled the Johnson farm.  They did not control the Taylor place and would not until after they made the deal.  They had an option to buy it, but had not bought it.  I’ve written about 600 times that my red line represents the WESTERN BORDER of the Johnson Farm, which was the western border of the land HDC actually owned (through their previous entity.)   

So I cannot fudge the line.  I think the TOTAL WIDTH was offered.   But Merion did not want the total width, they wanted land that was not offered.

Secondly, the last and only mention of 100 acres is the July letter where it is stated that Connell propsed 100 acres or whatever would be required of land to Merion, for the course.   He clearly was NOT talking about some exact dimensions...he was estimating what it might take because let's not forget; the course Merion was moving from was all of 65 to 72 acres (I've seen both number), so 100 acres perhaps sounded a lot to them.

But he did propose 100 acres or what ever would be needed.   He was offering them some portion of the Johnson farm.  Not the whole thing.  Francis tells us one of the parts that was not offered, the part in the corner.   Also, the land out by itself was not offered.   A few acres on the south border may not have been offered.

Also, we know that Merion wanted their golf course to be convenient to the railroad.  This wasn't a secondary goal...it was primary.   Early accounts talked about the land they were looking at stretched between two railroad stops, one of them being up by College Avenue.  Your proposed land goes nowhere near that stop for the course.

In fact, that November 24th, 1910 Philadelphia Press article I quoted yesterday that told about the syndicate of Atterbury, Lloyd, Huston, Griscom, and Lesley having bought 338 acres of which 117 would be used for the golf course also stated;

"The Philadelphia and Western Railroad, a third rail fast trolley, is to have a station practically at each end of the course, affording exceptional transportation."

Finally we agree!

The swap had to have taken place BEFORE November 24, 1910 because according to your source, by this date it had been determined that both stations were “practically at the each end of the course.”   

Not only that, but we agree on a timeline.   By your understanding, the land HDC offered “goes nowhere near the top of the course.”   So you must agree that the swap occurred After the initial offer, but before mid-November 1910.   While I disagree with your “goes nowhere near” exaggeration, the time frame is one I have believed all along.

By the way Mike, do you really think that getting as close as possible to this secondary stop was a “primary” goal of MCC’s?  Even with the Ardmore stop so close to the clubhouse, first, and 18th holes?    Did many cut their round short after the 15th and run around the corner and down College to the Haverford station?  Man, the 16th-18th must have been real dogs. 

Boy, they sure knew a lot about a course that you think they hadn't even started planning!   

The bottom line is there is no underpinning factual reason for you to have chosen the land you just did.   You're just trying to find any reasonable spot that adds up to 100 acres that doesn't include the triangle out of the 338 acres that HDC owned at that time.  The fact that it's a sliding scale and can add up to anything you need depending how we move the left boundary just makes it more convenient.

The bottom line is your facts are wrong again.  Mine is not a sliding boundary, but the Western boundary of the Johnson Farm, the only relevant property HDC actually owned at the time they made the offer to MCC.  How many times will I have to write this before you accept it?   

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

I can make no sense of your post 162. 

-  I don't think the Johnson farm rectangle set off to the west was 23 acres.  Didn't Bryan measure it at 20 acres, with the strip?
-  You think "18 is the acreage between Golf House Road today and the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm?"  If you are referring to the portion that was not included in my red square, I don't think this is anything near accurate.  Didn't Bryan measure this entire area at around 14 acres, including the part that MCC eventually acquired.
-   Your post makes no sense to me at all.  Perhaps you could clarify with more facts? 

SO, I think what this factual and numerical excercise shows is the area WHERE the land exchange and purchase came from on the land, but also HOW it was done and again WHEN it was done within the aforementioned TIMELINE and definitely not OUTSIDE the aforementioned timeline (given just the actual FACTUAL textual records and FACTUAL numerical acreage increments and totals of this period of Merion East's creation).

-Where, exactly did the land Merion received in the exchange come from?   And how does this relate to the Francis statement?
-What land, exactly, did Merion give up in the exchange?   And how does this relate to the Francis statement?
-When, exactly, did this swap take place?  And how does this relate to the Francis statement?

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Also Tom,  Earlier you provided part of the legal description of the land conveyed to HDC in Lloyd's name on December 19, 1910. 

"All that certain tract of land situated in Haverford Township, in the County of Delaware and the State of Pennsylvania, bounded as follows, viz. BEGINNING at a stone in the center line of College Avenue, a corner of the land of Lews P. Geiger, Junior, running thence south twenty three degrees (23) and fifty eight (58) minutes east nine hundred and eighty three and forty eight one hundreths (983.48) feet to a point."

I am assuming this is the first segment?  If so, can you provide the last two segments as well.  If it is not the first segment, can you provide the previous two?   If you can I'll calculate the area of the Johnson farm property above the southern border of the college property,  extended.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Without wanting to get into further debate at this point, I do have a question.

What is it you are hoping to learn or think you can show from the boundary lines?   Do you think we can identify the original 117 acres they were offered, or is there something I'm missing?

[DMoriarty]

First Mike,  do you understand my last couple of posts?  Because it seems like whenever I explain how you are misrepresenting one of my theories you just ignore me and then go on misrepresenting them.   

Do you understand how I arrived at the red boundaries?  Do you understand the north boundary is based on Francis' statement, and the west border is the western edge of what HDC owned?   

David,

Without wanting to get into further debate at this point, I do have a question.

What is it you are hoping to learn or think you can show from the boundary lines?   Do you think we can identify the original 117 acres they were offered, or is there something I'm missing?

They were not offered 117 acres, at least not originally.  They were offered 100 acres, plus or minus, depending on what they needed.   

Why do I want to know the boundaries?   Given that I am trying to figure out what happened, facts can only help.  Plus, TEPaul had speculated about a number of measurements and I was going to help him figure them out.   Plus the coordinates will allow me to show you exactly where the boundary of the Johnson Farm are, so maybe you will be able to comprehend the relationship between my red line and the land HDC actually controlled.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I know we disagree about what Francis meant but I am interested to see where you're going and what you think the boundary lines might be able to tell us.   I guess we'll see.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I know we disagree about what Francis meant but I am interested to see where you're going and what you think the boundary lines might be able to tell us.   I guess we'll see.   Thanks.

Mike,  it is possible to understand someone and still disagree.  Do you understand how I arrived at the red border or not?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I think so.

The part that has me confused is where I thought you said the red lines might or might not measure out to 100 acres, and I believe you also adjusted where that land boundary was on the left at least once which I have to say had me confused on why that was a moveable boundary.

On the other hand, if your point is that is indeed representative of the northwest boundary of the Johnson Farm, then I think we're on the same page and I want to see where you're headed next.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I can make no sense of your post 162."




That's doesn't surprise me. I hate to think we have to walk you back through this entire timeline but I guess we will. The beauty of the numerical excercise in post #162 is it can show us to the acre what went on here by using two totals (117) and (120.1)  as well as the particulars of the Thompson resolution on April 19, 1911 which match those two totals numerically (acreage). From there we then need to consider where the problem was; the problem Francis's idea solved and what Francis was working with that created the problem (obviously topo (contour) survey maps of the property and not that Nov. 15. PROPOSED land plan or anything preceding it). We need to recognize that something was squeezing him in on those last five holes along the western border of the golf course at the top of the "L" which is now Club House Road.

I'll start from the beginning again and take you through it, but first let me ask you a question. In some posts on this thread I believe you mentioned a few times that you think either the land bought or the land demarced in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan was MORE than 117 acres. I recall you said something to do with this over-all question or subject that the land bought or whatever was more than 117 acres, so what were you referring to?

If that's true which is it? 

From there we can just start at the beginning and move along getting agreement on each point before we move to the next one. If we can't manage that we should be able to see what particular point is the one that is sticking us up.

[TEPaul]

Wayne has also just come up with an excellent idea. We feel those topo survey maps that Wilson and committee were obviously working with to create "numerous different courses" and then "five different plans" in the winter and spring of 1911 (reflected in the Wilson Committee report given by Lesley to the MCC board on April, 19, 1911) have probably been lost by Merion so we may never find any of them at Merion GC or MCC or anywhere else.

However, someone did those topogaphical survey maps they were using and seeing as Yerkes & Co. is a really old survey firm around here (going way back before Merion Ardmore) and did and does most of the survey work around here, that company might still have a copy of the topographical survey map the Wilson Committee used. If they do that should explain the dimensions of the western border on top of the "L" that the Wilson Committee were working up into those last five holes against (not the western border on the top of the "L" of the old Johnson farm but the western border of what would become Club House Road). Again, it is probably reasonable to assume that delineation (that eventually became Club House Road) was not the very same thing as the delineation of the "approximate road location") on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan.

On that Mike Cirba is very right when he said to David Moriarty and Sully that in a discussion one cannot claim that "approximate road location" is inexact when making one argument and then turn around and claim it is exact when making another another argument or denying someone else's argument.

Before proceeding on I would like David Moriarty to admit that on here.

So what is it David Moriarty before we proceed? Do you believe that "approximate road location" in that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was measurable and exact or wasn't it?

[TEPaul]

Something else I might throw out here that I feel we have probably learned at this point from the discussions on this thread is the actual remark of Francis about that triangle:

"Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Club House Road was exchanged for land about 130 wide by 190 yards long."

190 yards LONG?? (on that triangle IN GREEN David Moriarty was referring to in his essay as the ENTIRETY of Francis' land swap idea and fix on #15 green and #16 tee)

It seems to me we argued and argued about whether the base (width) of that triangle measured 130 yards or 95 or 100. But because we now have all learned something and we seem to agree that the "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan may not have been an exact and measurable delineation along any point of that yet-to-be-built” road we probably shouldn't be using it as a reference any longer.

However, did David Moriarty believe he should NOT be using that “approximate road delineation” (on the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan as an exact measurement WHEN he wrote his “The Missing Faces of Merion” essay and put it on here a year ago? Well, we can certainly ask him but I would offer the following as an indication that he did think back then that triangle was a good representation dimensionally (130x190) of that triangle in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 plan! And it of course was most important to his contention about WHEN Francis’ idea and the swap happened that the area in green WAS the ENTIRETY of the triangle that his idea created BEFORE that Nov. 15, 1910 Proposed land plan (BEFORE Nov, 15, 1910).

Here’s what he said about it in his essay.


“As quoted by Tolhurst, Francis wrote that Merion gave up “land west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout;” land which was later “covered by fine homes along Golf House Road.” In exchange, Merion received a small section of “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.” No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description.” (130x190)


He said it “perfectly matches Francis’ description” (130X190)! Did he ever try to measure any of it in any way BEFORE that essay? Apparently not; he may not have even known it was semi-measurable, he probably just assumed it was some kind of triangle of 130x190 (Francis’ description of it ).

But we can all see the top of that triangle very much goes all the way to College Ave IN GREEN and the fact is if one measures that area from two very much known points (from the middle of College Ave down to the southwest corner of the Haverford College land) it comes out to 327 yards!!!

Obviously, in his 1950 story Richard Francis was talking about something other than that triangle IN GREEN on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan or else he surely wasn’t describing the dimensions of it remotely accurately on that Nov. 15, land plan IN HIS 1950 STORY!!

It seems we were perhaps a bit too fixated on the WIDTH of the base of the triangle and not enough considering of the LENGTH of that triangle in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan, don’t you think? The difference between 190 yards and 327 yards is definitely not insignificant!

David Moriarty, when you wrote in your essay what I quoted above from your essay about the dimensions of that triangle in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan ‘perfectly matches Francis’ description” (130X190) you had no idea what the width and particularly the LENGTH dimensions of that triangle in green were, did you?

Do you at least admit that now? If not, how can you deny you didn’t know that given what you said quoted above in your essay (that triangle IN GREEN ‘perfectly matches Francis’ description?’

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike says,

Bryan,

You want me to walk out on the 16th tee with GPS?

Now THAT'S funny!  Grin

Even funnier is I'm considering it, but it's not something I can get to this weekend.

Tom says,

"Even funnier is I'm considering it,"

I would not advise that; at least not unless you're carrying some pretty serious "heat" with you, like at least a couple of AK-47s. You also better get really proficient with you GPS coordinants to Bryn otherwise the medical helicopeters probably won't find you in time on the property before your ass is grass.

Mike says,

If I happen to get arrested this weekend on the 16th tee of Merion, please get Bryan Izatt to send bail money.  Grin

I say,

Man, those Merion guys sound like a tough bunch.  Perhaps you should take TEP with you as a bodyguard.  He seems to wander the land with impunity.  Or, more simply, when you're sitting on the monument, sit on the north west side of it.  Then you'll be on public land.    Look somewhere here for the monument.

[Bryan Izatt]

David provided the following metes from the 1928 Haverford College sliver of land purchase  (David, can you provide the rest of the metes that define the sliver, It'd be neat to pin that down.):

Regarding the west property boundary of the college land, try this.   

Start at the center of of College avenue, and travel along the border of Golf House Road and the neighboring property to the east, heading S 24 degrees 06 min. E for 381.11 feet.  A surveyor stone was at this location.   Then, on the same heading (S 24 degrees 06 min. E) travel 602.37 ft.  This was the southwest corner of the college property.

Yesterday, Tom finally    provided the metes for the western boundary of the college lands from the 1910 land transfer,

Here are the metes and bounds of the property line of the border of the MCC land from College Ave to the point on the southwest corner of the Haverford College land from the land transfer from Lloyd to Rothwell and Rothwell by deed to MCCGA the same day (July 21, 1910). This, of course, is the very same boundary line between the MacFadden place and Haverford College and the old Johnson Farm at the top of the "L".

"All that certain tract of land situated in Haverford Township, in the County of Delaware and the State of Pennsylvania, bounded as follows, viz. BEGINNING at a stone in the center line of College Avenue, a corner of the land of Lews P. Geiger, Junior, running thence south twenty three degrees (23) and fifty eight (58) minutes east nine hundred and eighty three and forty eight one hundreths (983.48) feet to a point."   

Now, not surprisingly the distances are exactly the same.  Yeaaaaah!.  But the directions are different by 0* 8' 0".  I suppose that could be within the margin of error of surveying or a diffenece in equipment 18 years apart.  In any event, that difference translates to less than 2 feet difference over 1000 feet.  So, I'm now convinced that the border I've drawn here is pretty close to accurate.  If Mike can GPS it, then I think we have a fact.




And that the overlay I previously created is pretty close although not exactly accurate.

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks, Bryan...

If one considers that it's really the eastern border of the road drawn in red that is the delineation, that sure is a heckuva lot of existing golf course falling outside the November 1910 dimensions.   Would you say it's about 30+ yards missing at the most obvious points?

And that's just looking at width.

If we talk about the length dimension, as Tom just noted, that 1910 map had golf course all the way north for 327 yards, which is hugely different than what was ever built, or designed.

What do you think we should do with the 1910 map?

To me, looking at it as just a rough delineation drawn for a land sale prospectus to membership is what makes sense.

Who would design a golf course with those soft flowing, curvilinear equidistant dimensions along a road, ending in an 11 foot wide point of a triangle?   That would be a little nuts on their part, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Of course I don't know how your GOOGLE Earth measuring tool works so it's hard for me to say why you aren't accurate if you're not. And I also wonder about those directional dimensions (degrees and minutes) David Moriarty gave you off that 1928 land transfer that created .403 of an acre more land along the east boundary of Merion in exchange for technical access from Golf House Road onto Haverford's land (the present Merion practice range).

I'm looking at the 1928 blueprint survey map (Yerkes) those metes and bounds (degrees and minutes and linear feet) came off of and even though I can't quite read the numbers on my computer ( I hope I can when I look at the actual Yerkes survey that is at Merion GC) but on the line on that eastern boundary it does not appear at all that the degrees and minutes direction was the same all the way from College to the southwest corner of the Haverford College land (that 983.11 linear dimension) once the swap with Haverford College was made in 1928. On the blueprint the line appeared to be the same as the old Johnson farm line until it got to a point next to the 16th tee and from that point it went south and east more than the old Johnson farm boundary. Essentially the latter is what created the .403 more land for Merion in exchange for Haverford College access to their property (today's Merion practice range that Haverford College owned until at least 1976).

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

If you look at your aerial again, would you agree that it would have been possible to get 14, 15, and 16 into even that narrow area if not for the need (probably unanticipated) to create an alternate route around the quarry on 16, probably once it became clear that the majority of members would not be able to routinely make that full carry?

Remember as well that the original 15th tee was located over along the road, behind the left side of the 14th green, in the area clearly outside of the bounds drawn on that November 1910 map.

[Mike_Cirba]

Hey,

I just had an idea.

What if Francis did a transposition and actually meant the 15th tee, 16th green? 

Remember the first thing that Francis said they did after the swap?  They went out and dynamited an area for the 16th green!

Does anyone know how wide that area is, especially if you go abut 190 yards up along Golf House Road on the left?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I know we disagree about what Francis meant but I am interested to see where you're going and what you think the boundary lines might be able to tell us.   I guess we'll see.   Thanks.

Mike,

Why do you want to know where he's going when he's armed with the facts ?

Isn't the important issue that of assembling the facts THEN drawing conclusions.

You and others seem focused on what David MAY say when the facts are known instead of being focused on determining the facts and letting them speak for themselves.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

If you look at your aerial again, would you agree that it would have been possible to get 14, 15, and 16 into even that narrow area if not for the need (probably unanticipated) to create an alternate route around the quarry on 16, probably once it became clear that the majority of members would not be able to routinely make that full carry?

Why does everyone assume that the configuration of holes 14, 15 and 16 in 1910-1912 is identical to their configuration today ?

Remember as well that the original 15th tee was located over along the road, behind the left side of the 14th green, in the area clearly outside of the bounds drawn on that November 1910 map.

Mike, David, TE, et. al.,

It might interest you to know that the original 12th tee at Pine Tree was NOT on Pine Tree's land, but, on that of an adjacent property owner.
And, Pine Tree was built around 1963.
The tee had to be abandoned and the hole converted from a par 5 to a par 4.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne has also just come up with an excellent idea. We feel

those topo survey maps that Wilson and committee were obviously working with to create "numerous different courses" and then "five different plans" in the winter and spring of 1911 (reflected in the Wilson Committee report given by Lesley to the MCC board on April, 19, 1911) have probably been lost by Merion so we may never find any of them at Merion GC or MCC or anywhere else.

Mike Cirba, TE, David, et. al.,

The above statement would seem to indicate that Wayne IS involved and actively participating in this debate.
He's just not typing responses.[/size]

[Mike_Cirba]

Hi Patrick,

The configuration of 14, 15, & 16, at least by 1916, were close to today's configuration, with the exception of the fact that the 15th tee was behind the left rear portion of the 14th green and the 16th tee appears in drawings to be located a bit closer to the 15th green.

As far as Wayne Morrison, I certainly would never presume to speak for him here, particularly on matters related to a club where he's a member.  On the other hand, I do imagine he's probably following the discussion closely.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, that must be one hell of a holiday party you're at...

Shiv,

We kept waiting for you to show up at the Kegger we had behind the 16th tee but alas.... 


Patrick,

Armed with facts?   

I think Exhibit A, the November 1910 Land Plan that ostensibly showed that the Francis Land Swap had to have happend prior to then just got sunk deeper than the Titanic, when it finally became obvious that it was simply meant to be exactly what it stated....a general idea of the approximate property delineation between real estate and golf course.

Those prospectus fliers in the manila folders one gets when they go to a property showing are worth as much in terms of accuracy. 

Honestly, if there are more facts forthcoming, someone should produce them already.

I was looking up something today and found that this discussion began over FIVE YEARS AGO.

We're all going to be dead and buried and our children will be arguing about this at this rate. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hi Patrick,

The configuration of 14, 15, & 16, at least by 1916, were close to today's configuration, with the exception of the fact that the 15th tee was behind the left rear portion of the 14th green and the 16th tee appears in drawings to be located a bit closer to the 15th green.

Mike,

Six years removed from 1910 is a long time.
Is it possible that the holes were configured differently in 1910 ?

As far as Wayne Morrison, I certainly would never presume to speak for him here, particularly on matters related to a club where he's a member.  On the other hand, I do imagine he's probably following the discussion closely.

According to TEPaul's post, he's doing more than following the discussion.
It appears that he's an active participant, allowing TEPaul to post for him, which is OK, but, TEPaul should indicate the author of excerpts of his posts if the source is other than himself.

When I think of modern day courses that fail to keep records, modern day courses that mis-measured or mis-constructed, it doesn't surprise me that that sort of thing could happen in 1910, although those guys seemed to be prolific writers.

It would also seem possible that perhaps those century old, dusty, MCC archives could hold enlightening information that could short cut these debates.

TEPaul,

I believe that your dad was a founding member at Pine Tree.
Do you know how Pine Tree got it wrong on the 12th hole ?
It's hard to imagine, in 1963, that they could mismeasure or miscalculate, yet that's what seems to have happened.

With respect to land acquisitions and the histories behind them, the land behind the 18th tee, that became the lengthened 18th tee at Newport is an interesting story, one that might be sympathetic or similar to what might have happened at Merion.


Mike,

I'd agree that some prospectuses are inaccurate, but, that doesn't mean that some aren't accurate.

[JESII]

On that Mike Cirba is very right when he said to David Moriarty and Sully that in a discussion one cannot claim that "approximate road location" is inexact when making one argument and then turn around and claim it is exact when making another another argument or denying someone else's argument.

Tom,

I've explained my position on the "Approximate Road Location" to both you and Mike...and it is that there is no way these guys would be soliciting their membership for this purchase (after they had already bought the land on their behalf...) with any semblance of that triangle in there using 3+ acres of a pretty limited total if they didn't know they were going up there for a green and a tee...

And none of that requires an accurate deliniation of Golf House Road...

[Bryan Izatt]

Ooops ........ trying out the table function.  Anybody know were the help function has gone?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()