Merion's Early Timeline

[TEPaul]

"Indeed, it would be good to do that comparison of the metes and bounds.  Do you have both of them?  Will you publish them here so we can deal with the facts and not all this conjecture on all parts."


Bryan:

I certainly think it would be good to do a comparison of the metes and bounds of the transfer to Lloyd on Dec, 19, 1910 when he took 161 acres into his own name (and his wife's) for MCC against the metes and bounds of the deed he transfered to MCCGA for 120.1 acres on July 21, 1911. And I think we will find that the only place those metes and bounds changed was in the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm. That's the point of my exercise of comparing the total acreage and incremental acreage between when Lloyd took the deed to 161 acres and when he passed it to MCCGA at 120.1.  

When you compare that in the context of the Thompson Resolution of April 19, 1911 I believe you will see where the land addressed in the Thompson Resolution was gotten (in the top of the "L") as well as in what particular timeframe!

I happen to believe there was 21 acres between the western delineation of Club House Road from College Ave on the north to Ardmore Ave on the south and the entire western boundary of the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm ON THEIR WORKING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS.

I also believe the Francis land swap idea happened and it was agreed to by Lloyd at some point between Dec. 19, 1910 and say April of 1911 and approved by the Board via the Thompson resolution that called for approval of an EXCHANGE between land ALREADY PURCHASED with land adjoining and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500.

I also happen to believe when they approved Thompson's resolution and then took that land adjustment formally by deed from Lloyd to MCCGA in July 21, 1911 there were only 18 acres between the western delineation of Club House Road and that old Johnson farm western boundary at the top of the "L".

I believe enclosing the metes and bounds of that area mentioned above will show that to be true and the interesting thing is we do have all those metes and bounds even if they were taken at different times and for different reasons. This is probably one of the reasons title insurance policies do not just reference any property's present metes and bounds but they often take it all the way back to the first survey ever done of that property as it appears on the earliest deed. And that is why we have so many properties around here that if you do that kind of title run (as Title Insurance Companies often do around here) you will see the the first deed is in the name of William Penn himself.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Thanks for again stating your beliefs.  But, the question remains, do you have the metes and bounds for those two land transfers and are you going to share them with us?

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

While some of Merion's own survey maps may be private information, I do not consider any of Merion's 11-12 deeds to be private information since all of them are available to anyone at the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county seat, Media, Pa. What coordinates are you asking about? And what deeds? Would you like the telephone # of the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's County Seat in Media, Pa so you could identify them all to the Recorder of Deeds office and perhaps have all of them sent to you?

You've got the documents Tom,  are you that big of an ass that you will require me to incur the expense of getting them again?   If so then you obviously aren't here for any productive purpose.  Have fun with your metes and bounds.  Maybe you should take a class to learn to read them.

That would probably be a good idea. It probably would've been a good idea well over a year ago, don't you think?

I didn't need the deeds for my essay, and I still don't need the deeds for my theory.  You need them for yours, but you cannot read them, so you just make things up.    I'd like to vet your theory and they would help me prove you wrong, again.    

You need to stop this nonsense.  Surely you don't want to get into a discussion with about who should have done what research.   After all you guys researched this stuff for a decade and never bothered to check what records MCC had.   I had to send Wayne material from Los Angeles when the originals were located at the Haverford College Library next to the course and at the Pennsylvania Archives in Philadelphia!   I don't need to rub your noses in your own ineptitude, but if you insist on saying or implying that my research was inadequate, I will.  

"The land demarked in green was MORE THAN 117 ACRES."



David Moriarty:

Thank you very much for that answer. Apparently you mean all the land in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan that is marked "Merion Golf Course", correct? If that's correct how did you come to that determination or conclusion?   
 

I've explained it repeatedly.   In short, one can tell by comparing the plan to what was actually purchased.  Also, I measured it.   Measure it yourself if you don't believe me.  

[TEPaul]

"Thanks Tom, now what about the metes and bounds."


Bryan:

I think I have all Merion's deeds (maybe 11-12) but most interestingly we do not seem to have the actual deed copy of the 161 acre transfer to Lloyd on Dec. 19, 1911. What we have is a brief abstract from Merieon of it. I do not believe Merion has ever had an actual copy of that deed. Wayne and I were talking about going to Media to get a copy of it tomorrow.

One might wonder, particularly one on this website, who has followed these Merion threads why Merion would not have a copy of that Dec. 19, 1910 deed along with their other 11-12? I guess the easy answer would be because it wasn't technically Merion's deed, it was Horatio Gates Lloyd's et ux! 

[Mike_Cirba]

I've explained it repeatedly.   In short, one can tell by comparing the plan to what was actually purchased.  Also, I measured it.   Measure it yourself if you don't believe me.  

David,

What is the value of measuring a proposed Land Plan where you admittedly tell us the whole northwestern boundary doesn't yet exist and is only "approximate"?

What is the value of measuring it against ANY of the land that was purchased?   Are any of the dimensions of the Land Plan accurate to the square foot?

What value is something that is admittedly inexact and merely estimative?   What could you possibly compare it against to derive any meaningful information?

Is this the map you used and measured?   This is the one that you included with your essay.

To get anything reasonably accurate, I had to go to the larger color version I put on this thread and even then had to blow it up 2x it's size to read it.

[TEPaul]

"I've explained it repeatedly.   In short, one can tell by comparing the plan to what was actually purchased.  Also, I measured it.   Measure it yourself if you don't believe me."


David Moriarty:

That's very interesting. To figure out the total acreage within the green section of that Nov. 15, 1910 plan compared to land actually purchased by MCC how does on compare that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED plan to what Merion actual purchased? Does one just eye-ball it next to perhaps a PRR railroad plat map of the property or next to an aerial of the property?

And you say you also measured it?? How did you measure that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED plan? Did you use a ruler off that scale at the bottom and then lay that ruler on a PRR plat map or an aerial of the property? Or did you just use the measurement device on this Google Earth thing, that seems to be no more than sort of an Internet RULER!?

Probably the smartest and most reliable thing for you or anyone else to do is do what surveyors still do today and do it by metes and bounds!  It's more exact that way.

By the way, how much more land is on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan in green compared to what MCC actually purchased?  

[TEPaul]

"You've got the documents Tom,  are you that big of an ass that you will require me to incur the expense of getting them again?"


David Moriarty:

Anyone on here can see I gave you the chance numerous times in the last few pages and more to have a good discussion on this subject on here and a civil one too but you just don't seem to want to take it or to do that. All you seem to want to do is just avoid the reality of the facts we've offered you or talk about who knew what a year or more ago or just bait me about what I do and don't know or what I have and you don't. 

But with that last post of yours, ALL OF IT, there is nothing at all I would dream of doing for you with information or anything else in the future. Henceforth, I guess you will just have to gleain it off of exchanges I'm having with others on here who know how to be moderately polite, unlike you.

I'm not a fan of some guy like you on the other side of the country who has hardly been to Merion of deciding to just sling a bunch of shit against the wall as to the credibility of the attribution of the course's architect (which in an entire century has never before been questioned by anyone) and then when he and his essay gets criticized for the shit he slung against the wall he constantly demands he must be given access to everything others have that he never had because of some hair-brained philosophy of civil discourse and being required to "VET" what they use to criticize his fallacious essay! IF you want it then go get it yourself as we did. Had you EVER, at any time, been even remotely cooperative with us or with me I may've helped you but that's all history now.

And then when everything is not made available to you by someone like me, you have the poor taste to ask me if I'm THAT BIG AN ASS because you may have to INCUR SOME EXPENSE to GET WHAT YOU WANT AND NEED!!

Maybe you should have THOUGHT of THAT BEFORE you wrote that ludicrous essay with less that half the information you needed to write it in the first place, David Moriarty, and not a year later! I'm quite sure, at this point, I couldn't possibly care less about your "work" (what a really dumb Hollywood sounding term that one is ), your reputation or what expense you might have to incur to satisfy your ridiculous "Merion' curiosity or animus or whatever the hell it is that makes you carry on and on and on this sorry campaign of yours about Merion Golf Club.

If there is anyone left on here who is interested in either defending or challenging the credibility of your essay I would be glad to do it and if you're around or not I really don't care anymore. After that last post you definitely won't get any information on here directly from me again when you ask for it. My opinion, is my opinion, and my opinion of your essay is and always has been it is one of the worst things and for a number of reasons, I've ever seen. There is hardly a jot of FACT or TRUTH in the entire thing!

It's sad you actually consciously revert to the kind of behavior you just did on that last post and a number of others in the last few days. There is no question at all in my mind you did it as just another last ditch PLOY to avoid actually dealing with the FACTS and the TRUTH about Merion we have been putting before you on this thread. I'm certain you know very well if you even attempted to have a good and civil discussion with us about this, your entire essay's credibility will come down like the house-of-cards it is and then everyone on here will see, as clear as day, it is just that and nothing more.

[DMoriarty]

"You've got the documents Tom,  are you that big of an ass that you will require me to incur the expense of getting them again?"


David Moriarty:

Anyone on here can see I gave you the chance numerous times in the last few pages and more to have a good discussion on this subject on here and a civil one too but you just don't seem to want to take it or to do that. All you seem to want to do is just avoid the reality of the facts we've offered you or talk about who knew what a year or more ago or just bait me about what I do and don't know or what I have and you don't. 

But with that last post of yours, ALL OF IT, there is nothing at all I would dream of doing for you with information or anything else in the future. Henceforth, I guess you will just have to gleain it off of exchanges I'm having with others on here who know how to be moderately polite, unlike you.

I'm not a fan of some guy like you on the other side of the country who has hardly been to Merion of deciding to just sling a bunch of shit against the wall as to the credibility of the attribution of the course's architect (which in an entire century has never before been questioned by anyone) and then when he and his essay gets criticized for the shit he slung against the wall he constantly demands he must be given access to everything others have that he never had because of some hair-brained philosophy of civil discourse and being required to "VET" what they use to criticize his fallacious essay! IF you want it then go get it yourself as we did. Had you EVER, at any time, been even remotely cooperative with us or with me I may've helped you but that's all history now.

And then when everything is not made available to you by someone like me, you have the poor taste to ask me if I'm THAT BIG AN ASS because you may have to INCUR SOME EXPENSE to GET WHAT YOU WANT AND NEED!!

Maybe you should have THOUGHT of THAT BEFORE you wrote that ludicrous essay with less that half the information you needed to write it in the first place, David Moriarty, and not a year later! I'm quite sure, at this point, I couldn't possibly care less about your "work" (what a really dumb Hollywood sounding term that one is ), your reputation or what expense you might have to incur to satisfy your ridiculous "Merion' curiosity or animus or whatever the hell it is that makes you carry on and on and on this sorry campaign of yours about Merion Golf Club.

If there is anyone left on here who is interested in either defending or challenging the credibility of your essay I would be glad to do it and if you're around or not I really don't care anymore. After that last post you definitely won't get any information on here directly from me again when you ask for it. My opinion, is my opinion, and my opinion of your essay is and always has been it is one of the worst things and for a number of reasons, I've ever seen. There is hardly a jot of FACT or TRUTH in the entire thing!

It's sad you actually consciously revert to the kind of behavior you just did on that last post and a number of others in the last few days. There is no question at all in my mind you did it as just another last ditch PLOY to avoid actually dealing with the FACTS and the TRUTH about Merion we have been putting before you on this thread. I'm certain you know very well if you even attempted to have a good and civil discussion with us about this, your entire essay's credibility will come down like the house-of-cards it is and then everyone on here will see, as clear as day, it is just that and nothing more.

Finally, you've answered a question!

[DMoriarty]

David,

What is the value of measuring a proposed Land Plan where you admittedly tell us the whole northwestern boundary doesn't yet exist and is only "approximate"?

Mike.  I measured it because you and Tom were claiming that it was EXACTLY 117 acres, and that it was the EXACT location of the road.  This was just a few days ago, did you forget this?

I measured it to be sure that you were wrong, and by how much.   Overkill I guess, since one can eyeball it and tell you were wrong, but I am pretty careful about not making claims on here until I am sure I am right. 

____________________________

And you say you also measured it?? How did you measure that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED plan?

TEPaul,

I created an overlay of the plan, and measured on the actual land using google earth's measuring tools.   Just because you don't understand these tools, doesn't mean they aren't accurate.   

How did you measure the plan before writing that it showed us exactly 117 acres?     Trick question, since you just assumed that it was accurate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks Tom, now what about the metes and bounds.  Have you got them?  Will you share them?

TEPaul,

Bryan has asked you for this information repeatedly.

WHY WON'T YOU PROVIDE IT TO HIM ?

TEPaul,

In all fairness, to chastize David Moriarty for NOT coming to you and Wayne prior to the construction of his premise is arrogant and more than a bit insulting.
Since when were the two of you annointed as the filter, check point or keeper of the gates for anything written about Merion ?

David's work was attacked by you, Wayne and Mike prior to its publication, so what incentive, what reason would he have to consult with you ?

I don't know that David's premise/s are flawed, valid or a combination of the two.
What I do know is that he and his premise have been under siege prior to publication.
That hardly incentivizes the cooperative spirit.

When Bryan and David ask you repeatedly for the Metes and Bounds, if you have the information, WHY WOULDN'T you provide it ?
And, if you DON'T have the information, JUST SAY SO.
There's no need to be coy.

When I distill throught the nonsense, I've found the discussion interesting and informative.
Certainly far more is known about the formative years of Merion as a result of David's premise.
So, irrespective of the ultimate results, more is known about Merion as a result of David's project, and that's a good thing.

I look at this and related threads like a man looks at a woman.

When he's courting her, she can't do anything wrong.
When he's trying to get rid of her, she can't do anything right.
Yet, she hasn't changed one iota, it's ONLY HIS perception of her that's changed.

And so it is with these threads, nothing David presents, NOTHING is greeted well.
Everything he presents is AUTOMATICALLY denied by you, Wayno and Mike.

If his FACTS are wrong, correct them.
If his REASONING is wrong, correct it by offering more prudent reasoning, but, DON'T DISMISS IT OUT OF PRINCIPLE.

End of rant 

[DMoriarty]

And TEPaul, just so we are clear, you have repeatedly claimed to have the legal descriptions for these properties but when I asked you for the legal descriptions, you told me to get them from Media myself. 

In my opinion this is a petty move.  If you have a better description for your behavior, I'd be glad to consider it. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

STOP with the name calling, it's not doing anyone any good.

[DMoriarty]

David,

STOP with the name calling, it's not doing anyone any good.

That's fine Patrick.  I will.

But I've lost patience for these endless games.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Here are the dimensions of the first few hundred feet of the western border of the HDC lands, beginning of Golf house road, according to the 1928 documents.  (Note that the border follows the centerline of Golf house road. 

Begin at the point where the center line of College and the center line of Golf House Road cross and go South 23:56:45 East, 230.03 ft. (At this point the road curves west, radius 200.8 ft., so the rest are the chords.)  South 15:19 East, 60 ft.  Then South 1:12 East, 38.3 ft.  Then South 14:31 West, 71 ft.

The survey doesn't provide a chord for the remainder of the curve shown, but does provide a long chord from the end of the straight 230.03 ft segment to the last point on the curve shown: North 7:34:56 East, 209.25 ft. 

[TEPaul]

"Finally, you've answered a question!"
 
 
David Moriarty:

Good! Then answer mine on post 670 and maybe we can start a productive discussion of this entire Richard Francis land swap idea when it happened and when it was effectuated by the MCC board and by deed. If there is something you don't understand about it just ask me to explain what you don't understand about post 670 and I will.

[DMoriarty]

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? 

The land marked as Merion Golf Course is more than 117 acres.   

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I created an overlay of the plan, and measured on the actual land using google earth's measuring tools.   Just because you don't understand these tools, doesn't mean they aren't accurate.   

How did you measure the plan before writing that it showed us exactly 117 acres?     Trick question, since you just assumed that it was accurate."


David Moriarty:

If you just want to continue to carry on explaining who was wrong and when about any of this in the past fine but there's nothing that will be gained by it on here.

That was then; this is now!

I did once assume that the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was accurate because it has a scale on the Pugh and Hubbard plan. Pugh and Hubbard were Philadelphia surveyors.

The date on that Pugh and Hubbard Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is around the same time HDC made a 117 acre offer to MCC and MCC accepted their offer so I assumed that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was accurate. But Lloyd would not buy the land until Dec. 19, 1910. I certainly never tried to actually measure that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan myself though and now I feel that it is true that the "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15, 1910 is not an accurate dimensional representation of that boundary that the Wilson Committee were using when they routed and designed numerous layouts and courses on their TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS which I only can be sure they had after January 1911 and which I believe did have a accurate dimensional representation of what that road was to be. If their working topographical survey maps which they were laying out numerous courses and plans on in the winter and spring of 1911 did not have an accurate dimensional representation of the western boundary at the top of the "L" (Club House Road) at that time then Wilson and his committee probably never would have had a problem getting those last five hole in and there never would have been a reason for Francis's idea or the swap, WOULD THEY!?

Haven't you claimed numerous times on here that you too do NOT think that "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15, 1910 Land Plan is dimensionally accurate? If so, I will ask you again, how can you measure the area in green that uses that "approximate road location on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan as one of its boundaries and determine whether the area in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan represents MORE or LESS or the same area as the 117 acres MCC agreed to buy from HDC?

This is a pretty fundamental and straightforward question and you should be able to answer it one way or the other. At the very least you certainly should be able to UNDERSTAND the question if you may much of an understanding of what was going on there at that time.

[TEPaul]

"The land marked as Merion Golf Course is more than 117 acres."


David Moriarty:

How can you determine that and claim that if you claim one of its boundaries is NOT dimensionally accurate?

You do claim that "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15, 1910 Pugh and Hubbard land plan is NOT dimensionally accurate don't you?

Do you agree that the Proposed Club House Road on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was being used on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan to represent a dimensional boundary of MERION EAST GOLF COURSE even if, as you said, it was "illustrative"?

Do you agree when built Club House Road IS one of the dimensional boundaries of MERION EAST GOLF COURSE?   

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

I think I just answered the same question when Mike asked above, but maybe I was not clear.

1.  As you know, you guys were insistent that the 1910 Land Plan was dimensionally accurate and that the road represented exactly where they planned on placing the road as of that date.   

2.  If this were true, then the area in green should have measured 117 acres, as that was the amount of land that the accompanying explanations specified.

3.  I measured the area in green to prove that the land plan was NOT DIMENSIONALLY ACCURATE.  Otherwise it would have depicted 117 acres.

So when you ask me how I can measure the land in green if one of the boundaries is not dimensionally accurate, my answer is that my measure is only proof that it is not dimensionally accurate.  Other than that (but because of it) I don't think exact measures from the 1910 plan do us much good.

[DMoriarty]

Do you agree that the Proposed Club House Road on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan was being used on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan to represent a dimensional boundary of MERION EAST GOLF COURSE even if, as you said, it was "illustrative"?
Do you agree when built Club House Road IS one of the dimensional boundaries of MERION EAST GOLF COURSE?   

Yes to both.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

That three point explanation in Post #731 is a pretty interesting one but I think I see your point. I've got to go to a barbeque for a while but let me consider that answer and that maybe we are all in agreement that the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is not of much use to us to determine certain things about the creation of Merion perhaps including when Francis' land swap happened.

Perhaps now that we are agreed on the answer to that question we can move on to the next question in this discussion of the Francis land swap. I'll be back soon.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

That three point explanation in Post #731 is a pretty interesting one but I think I see your point. I've got to go to a barbeque for a while but let me consider that answer and that maybe we are all in agreement that the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is not of much use to us to determine certain things about the creation of Merion perhaps including when Francis' land swap happened.

I'll be back soon.

Let me save you some time on that one.   While I don't think the map was exactly dimensionally accurate, I do think it gives us a good idea of where they were planning on putting the golf course on that date.    I do not think they would have included the corner of land (whether or not to the exact dimensions) unless they were planning on putting something in there.   

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm still convinced that Hugh Wilson is the architect responsible for Merion East.

[DMoriarty]

I'm still convinced that Hugh Wilson is the architect responsible for Merion East.

Dan,

Of course you are.  But then whether or not you are convinced doesnt really get us any closer to figuring out exactly what happened, does it?       

I hope you don't mind but I'll continue to try and figure it out myself, whether or not you or anyone else is convinced. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David Moriarty:

That three point explanation in Post #731 is a pretty interesting one but I think I see your point. I've got to go to a barbeque for a while but let me consider that answer and that maybe we are all in agreement that the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan is not of much use to us to determine certain things about the creation of Merion perhaps including when Francis' land swap happened.

I'll be back soon.

Let me save you some time on that one.   While I don't think the map was exactly dimensionally accurate, I do think it gives us a good idea of where they were planning on putting the golf course on that date.    I do not think they would have included the corner of land (whether or not to the exact dimensions) unless they were planning on putting something in there.   

And therein lies the crux of the entire disagreement, in my view.

While you David see the existence of land adjacent to Haverford College that runs all the way north to College Avenue as indicative of some preconceived notion of the golf course, I believe that it's merely the fact that the Johnson Farm in that section ran from Ardmore Avenue all the way up to College Avenue, and the equidistant, slow-curving, hypothetical, approximate road merely makes a nice potential boundary between the real estate and golf components.

I think if it were meant to indicate anything pre-planned routing, I'm quite certain the triangle would have ended well before College Avenue, EXACTLY as the course does today, but it doesn't...it runs all the way up to College Avenue, just like the Johnson Farm did.

I also believe it would be accurate dimensionally, both in terms of width, where it's too narrow, and length, where it's WAY too long.

That makes sense, because it was a rough approximation and indicative really as a working idea, not some reflection of a finished, routed, completed golf course.