Merion's Early Timeline

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

You need to check with your writing partner about who figured what out about the real estate transactions. If it wasn't for me you guys would still be claiming that Merion bought about half of haverford township in 1909.  You still have iit wrong, but far be it from me to explain.

But let's close up the issue about the 1910 plan.  You've insisted repeatedly that the road exactly represented the pre-swap golf course land and that it measured 117 acres.   Do you now agree that you were wrong.   If so, then your theory on the swap falls as well, doesn't it?

Let's clear this up before you move on to something else you don't really understand. 

[Mike_Cirba]

*

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba's logic applies equally as well (or better) if the pending visit was CBM's first, not second.

David, 

So now you are placing the design of .Merion out before June 1910 before Macdonald even saw the property?

Is there any length you won't go to in trying to diss Hugh Wilson?

You've now just thrown Macdonald under the bus as discarded him as the architect...perhaps we need to start calling it a LLoyd/Francis design?

Mike Cirba, 

This post exemplifies why you have no business in this conversation.  I don't know if it is an emotional block or an intellectual block or both, but even when you are not flying off the handle for you it all boils down to who is being dissed and/or thrown under the bus, and everything you read and think is apparently based on that single consideration.     For me it is about figuring out what happened.   I go where the facts lead us.   You, on the other hand, try to take the facts to where you have remained are firmly planted since this conversation began.   

And Mike, if you were capable of actually understanding my essay, you would be aware that I already did note that Lloyd and Francis were involved in routing the course. 

David,

Despite your insults, I'll try to answer civilly.

You write a paper claiming that Merion was already routed prior to Nov 1910 most likely by Macdonald, and now rather than concede even the most basic point that perhaps there was a sense of urgency by the committee to finish the plan prior to Macdonald's Apr 1911 return you tell us that a more plausible scenario is that the Francis swap happened BEFORE Macdonald's initial Jun 1910 visit, BEFORE he had even seen the property, and while Merion and Connell's group were still trying to determine even the basic suitability of the property for golf.

Of course, if this latest theory of your's were true it would mean the course was designed by Francis and LLoyd and not Macdonald because the Francis swap completed and finalized the routing, which is of course absolutely preposterous.   

And although I do note that you mentioned Francis and Lloyd as having some slight input to the original routing, your latest theory gives them TOTAL credit for the complete routing of the holes and design of the course, and yes, it does throw your Macdonald as architect theory out the window because now you are contending that the course was routed before HE even saw the property!   

Yet, you state that my response questioning your willingness to ditch the Macdonald train to continue your ABW (anybody but Wilson) quest is proof why I am somehow too daft to participate in this discussion?   

[Mike_Cirba]

Now, some more overlay fun.  The one below has the 1910 and the 1913 maps overlaid on the current Google Earth aerial.  I've highlighted the roads - the "approximate one from 1910 in red and the as-built (?) one from 1913 in blue.  As David has said, the maps, particularly the 1910 one are somewhat distorted and it's hard to match them to the current layout.  Having said that, Llewellyn Road on the 1913 map, matches almost exactly to the current road.  The Haverford College boundary does not exactly match where the property line was, if my previous post is correct.  But, other matching points I used do fit.

David,

A question for you.  We agree that the triangle existed on the 1910 map and was put there by the surveyors at the request of someone(s) that owned, or planned to own,the property for the Merion course? If it was there because the Francis land swap was already in the minds of those that instructed the surveyors to draw the map, why does it look like the other land to be swapped to the HDC, in return, down near the clubhouse between the blue and red roads, isn't also reflected in the 1910 map? The two roads are significantly different enough that it is hard to think that the difference is made up by the "approximate" label on the 1910 map.  Notwithstanding your mutual feud with Tom and Mike, is it possible, in your mind, that Francis mispoke or was misquoted regarding the 130 x 190 yard piece of property?

Brian,

Thanks for trying this again.

However, the lines of the road are very thick and it hides quite a bit of what doesn't fit.

I'd also question something....

From the left inside boundary of the road we know that the 1913 map is 130 yards to the right boundary.

From the left inside boundary of the road we know that the 1910 map is less than 100 yards to the right boundary.

I think it's about 95 yards, but for discussion purposes, let's say it's 100 so the base of the triangle on the 1910 map is about 75% as wide as the 1913 map...would you agree?

Why does it appear that the 1910 western boundary is very close to the 1913 western boundary...probably closer to 85-90% at the base of the triangle?

I think you've slightly and miscalculated mislocated the 1910 western boundary...in fact, I recall from an earlier attempt that today's 1st green didn't fit into what was purchased either.

David,

Even with that, there is no way you can say that the last holes fit up in there.

The 14th green and original 15th tee are off the property, as is much of the left side of 15.

Let me ask you another question...

When you played Merion with hickory shafts, did you attempt to reach the 430 yard 16th in two shots with a direct all-carry second over the quarry?   Or did you try to play around safely to the right?

It's very apparent looking in that area that there is no way to fit in the strategic alternate route to the right, as well as the 14th green, as well as the 15th tee, unless that 1910 land was wider.   That's why the 15th tee was originally over along the road, behind the left side of the 14th green.

Even then, the 14th green couldn't fit in the original land, nor the 15th tee.   Perhaps if they only wanted 16 to play about 350 yards, with a pitch across the quarry, they could have accommodated your specious theory.    But for the grand 16th hole with a second shot worthy of the setting on their championship course, I'm sure they wanted something a bit more dramatic. 

You keep telling us that the 15th green and 16th tee fit in to the original map, and they do, barely, but it's the rest of those holes down to the 14th green that don't fit, and which required the land adjustment, largely because of the size of the quarry, and the desire to use it as a hazard on multiple holes.

This blowup shows the area of the quarry in yellow..even with my previously mentioned issues with Bryan's dimensions, you still haven't fit the final five holes in, David...not even close.




It's very apparent how they needed to create fairway right of the quarry on 16 to give the average member a fighting chance on the hole.

With that, it was necesary to locate the 14th green well out along the boundary on the left, as well as the 15th tee (which used to be behind the left side of the 14th green) and much of that fairway, none of which fit AT ALL iinto the 1910 Land Plan.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty says in Post #281:

“No Tom.   I don't just make these things up.  The acreage shown as the golf course is substantially larger than the 117 acres it is supposed to be.   You can see this from even looking at Bryan's overlay.   Plus, I've measured it.   But why don't you go out and pace off the metes and bounds and calculate it yourself? 

For anyone confused:

1.  The area Merion ultimately purchased was 117 yards.   
2.  TEPaul claims that the area marked "golf course" on the 1910 plan was 117 yards.”



David Moriarty says in Post #288:

“But let's close up the issue about the 1910 plan.  You've insisted repeatedly that the road exactly represented the pre-swap golf course land and that it measured 117 acres.   Do you now agree that you were wrong.   If so, then your theory on the swap falls as well, doesn't it?

Let's clear this up before you move on to something else you don't really understand.”


 


I do not agree I am wrong. And therefore I stand behind my contention that Thompson’s resolution at the 4/19/11 board meeting that land be exchanged for land ALREADY BOUGHT therefore indicates Francis’s land swap idea happened AFTER Dec. 19, 1910, the date on which Horatio Gates Lloyd bought that land and could not have happened BEFORE THAT date and certainly not BEFORE Nov. 15, 1910, as your essay contends! 

As for the reason I contend that the area marked “Golf Course” on the Nov. 15, 1910 plan was 117 acres (above you said yards, which is another example of your constant inaccuracies on this website ) which YOU DENY is because Horatio Gates Lloyd said exactly that HIMSELF in a circular to the MCC membership on Nov. 15, 1910, as reflected below;



“It is proposed to form on behalf of The Merion Cricket Club, a Corporation which will buy outright, the 117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked “Golf Course.”
Horatio Gates Lloyd, Nov. 15, 1910


So, you’re saying you don’t make things up? You're saying the land on that map in green is NOT 117 acres? You're saying it's LARGER than 117 in green on that Nov. 15. 1910 land plan Lloyd was referring to in his circular to his membership? You’re saying you know that because you’ve measured that land in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan Lloyd was referring to in his circular to the MCC membership? How did you MEASURE that, on Google Earth??    And you claim you can see it’s larger on the map because of Bryan Izatt’s overlays?? How do you measure the dimensions of the area in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan by just looking at Bryan Izatt’s overlays?



You’re asking US to believe you know what the dimensions of that land in green are rather than Horatio Gates Lloyd HIMSELF, the man who engineered this move to Ardmore? The man who very likely controlled HDC at that point? The man who took the deed into his own name for what would become Merion East's land for their golf course? The man who would serve as the president of The MCC Golf Association Corporation in 1910 and 1911 and on???

On these threads and in your preposterous essay on this website you have said Richard Francis might've been engaging in hyperbole for some of the things he said in his story which you base a major premise of your essay on? Why wouldn't  a person like you say that since your premise doesn't jibe at all with some of the things he said in his story?

You say Hugh Wilson’s brother was engaging in hyperbole when he wrote for the first Merion history writer that in the main Hugh I. Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses and to a man everyone of his committee told him so? Why WOULDN'T a person like you say that since his remarks don't jibe with your preposterous essay about Merion?

What are you going to do now----tell us Horatio Gates Lloyd, the man who probably engineered the entire move of MCC from Haverford to Ardmore was engaging in hyperbole in this circular and lying to his board, to his club, to his entire membership?


You don’t make stuff up? Do you ever NOT make stuff up when it comes to your preposterous campaign against Merion, against its architect Hugh Wilson, against Philadelphia? Against US?

[Mike_Cirba]

Once again, to swallow David's theory that the Francis Land Swap included the ENTIRE TRIANGLE one needs to believe that;

1) CB Macdonald recommended that the Merion Committee buy land only as far north as 65 yards past the quarry (even though they could have gone as far north as College Avenue), although Macdonald clearly said in July of 1910 that "the quarry...can be made much of", which I would think meant more than the single par three that definition permitted.

2) That once the first 13 holes were put in place (according to Francis) all south of the Clubhouse, that whoever (according to David, that would be one CB Macdonald) was trying to layout the remaining FINAL FIVE finishing holes were trying to do it in the area outlined in light purple.




With independent pluck, yesterday Jim Sullivan took up my challenge and attempted to lay out the FINAL FIVE holes in that land as David Moriarty tells us that Macdonald & Whigham and the Merion Committee tried, all before November 1910, and described his proposed FINAL FIVE championship holes as follows;

Mike...why couldn't the 14th hole have gone up the 18th hole, finishing before the quarry...from in front of, or behind the clubhouse (coincidentally, right near the 13th green)? From there you could do a number of things over and around the quarry before coming back down to the current 14th tee / 18th green neighborhood...

How about:
#15 - a par 3 down to the right (NE) corner of the property
#16 - a par four up towards the top left (NW) corner
#17 - a short par four to today's 16th green neighborhood
#18 - a long par four down to todays 18th green or even beyond a bit



Well, Jim and I spoke yesterday while I was enroute to a concert, and I promised him that I'd do a Google Earth Measurement of his proposed course when I had a moment, and despite Jim's bold efforts, I think he'd be disappointed to learn that the holes he mentioned lay out as follows;

14 - 220 yards uphill
15 - 250 yard using today's 17th hole
16 - 294 yards slightly uphill
17 - 288 yards slightly downhill
18 - 370 yards downhill

Probably not the FINAL FIVE that most courses, even in 1912, would have wanted for their Championship Course!  

Plus, given Macdonald's recommendations regarding the potential use of the quarry, the 17th would really be the only Quarry hole.

David Moriarty...would you like to try to do better?

After all...it's YOUR THEORY of what these guys were trying to do...PLEASE try to lay out the final five holes on the land YOU DESCRIBED short of the triangle.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The graphic above with the two roads reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line - "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

We know a land swap took place in the general area of the last five holes and specifically on the west side of those five holes.  We can see the two road alignments - one generally proposed near the beginning of the planning process and one that evolved.  Just how much tortured thought mongering must go on to try to convince people that the land swapped was any different than what is shown?  It just seems so simple to me that I can't understand how anyone could believe that the simple, clear explanation is not the correct one. 

If a picture is worth a 1000 words, I hope anyone believing this is not the land swapped can post a graphic showing what land it really was.   I mean, its all right there in those two plans/aerial views.

Forgetting what people said thirty years later, what competence surveyors might have had (and they probably didn't even draw that plan, or at least today it would be drawn by a landscape architect or engineer) whether the land swapped was exactly an acre for acre (from memory, the Merion land deal allowed UP TO 120 acres at X per acre and both parties were probably happy to have it be less - the golf course saves 3 acres on the purchase price and the developer picks up some lots) etc. etc. etc.

As always, if I am wrong, please advise. I just really can't see how I can be after all this has been beat to death.  Actually, being beat to death almost sounds preferable to getting involved again......I am going back into hibernation on this thread. My head hurts from reading it for the last ten minutes or so.

[TEPaul]

"As always, if I am wrong, please advise."




Mr Jeffrey Brauer, Esq, Sir, you fine man; How are you and yours?

You are not wrong at all. Your experience as an architect and with these kinds of swapping issues that MCC and HDC and Lloyd did back then give you a real leg up on this.

You are right and if we want to solve this Merion thing we can do it, probably tomorrow.

The only way to do it, though, is to take all of this right back to the solid factual baseline and just strip away ALL the speculation on here on this subject over maybe years. If this subject has been a dispute and argument, and it has, both sides have engaged in speculations and if we keep doing that nothing will be resolved, ever!

We are never going to solve this with people on here trying to measure this with Google Earth at this time, that's for sure. Maybe they have fun doing that but it won't solve this. And we will never solve this by word parsing to death some sentence in a vacuum that bears on the truly relevent events around it.

But we can do it with legal documents and I have them. If we can all agree that we can rely on Merion's deeds and legal documents from back then, I'll take you through this and we should reach a resolution on this whole thing tomorrow and put this to sleep.

You are very right to say that the only place to really look is that common border between the golf course and the MCC future development from College Ave on the north to Ardmore Ave on the south. I mean it could've happened elsewhere because of Lloyd but it didn't and anyone will eventually see why. And then there's another factor that has never been discussed on here----ie did the Wilson Committee's working topo maps totally match the dimensional boundaries of that common border on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan?

You're the MAN, Mr. Jeff. You come back on here tomorrow, I'll take this down to the bare facts even a Moriarty could agree with (well, don't let me get too optimistic here. ) and we can finish this off tomorrow.

It's all in the deeds; they don't lie; essentially they can't or not for long, and you know that too, right Jeffrey Baby? You've got a total of 338.6 acres between two entities going in; You've got 117 acres agreed to in a legal arrangment on one side of the fence with the other side of the fence; you've got 221.6 on the other side of the fence. You've got a common border which we all can agree on and see and you have one guy controlling both sides of the fence. He controls one side going in and he owns the other side for seven months and then takes it back out. At the end of the seven months, one side (MCC Golf Association Co) comes out with 120.1 and the other side ends up with 218.5 instead of 221 (?). Did 3 acres get lost in the shuffle? Of course not, that can't happen. Somebody had to pay for the difference and MCC agreed to do that (on that I think we have made a mistake in interpretation of something for years). The other item is no transfers were made during all this time that we or Merion know of with any parties other than these two.

Can we solve this tomorrow this way Jeffrey? Can we, can we? I think so. Will we figure it out by Google Earthing the hell out of a yet to be built road and the side of a course today? Probably not but the deeds don't lie, that's for sure.

Will we figure out when the Francis land swap happened? I sure think so. Will we figure out how it dimensionally happened along that yet to be built road? I doubt that. Does it matter? I don't see why because at the end of the day it all matched back out on both sides of the fence with the 338.1 acres they all went into this with. The problem with that yet to be built road (the future Golf House Road, is although it may've been dimensionaly close to correct I don't think it was ever surveyed technically with metes and bounds like the rest of the borders were or had been going in and going back out. And the reason for that is Lloyd put himself in the position to move it subsequently (after he purchased the 161 acres on Dec. 19, 1910).

By the way, I read all the metes and bounds on the Merion side (when the deed was going back out on July 21, 1911 to MCC Golf Association Corp) and these surveyors don't measure this stuff to an acre or even a tenth of an acre; they do it to a hundredth of an acre. We're talking less than a foot here and even without its socks on! THIS is PENNSYVANIA! 

[TEPaul]

Shiv:

I've got to go to a christening but that's a very good question. The first thing I would say to your question is who is WE? It would be very edifying to see some of the other participants who are really interested in this stuff try to answer YOUR question FIRST and I will be back later to take a look. In the meantime it will probably show how much most people on these threads have never really kept their eye on the ball on this overall subject. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shiv,

All that is in the old threads.  But basicallly, Lloyd bought the whole thing knowing it would be development and golf, with him and cronies doing the development and selling off the necessary parcel to MCC to be the neighborhood country club.

TePaul,

I hope your Sunday is going well, my good man.  I look forward to seeing your info on the deeds. They will tell the tale.

That said, I had the impression that MCC lost land in the swap, but you say they actually gained 3 acres.  If that is the case, and we are not talking about the railroad land which was a separate transaction, then the previous graphic suggests the only way they could get more land is if the entire triangle was included in the land swap.  Even with the area shown in black, the land given and taken along that road looks about equal.

I think info on the deeds would clear up a lot for those who want to know, presuming that there was a pre swap and post swap deed, which may not have been the case.   I also hink Wilson's topo maps, which I don't recall hearing before might be as good a guide as to where they originally planned the golf course before the swap.

That 11-15-1910 document is a rendering and generalized concept plan more than a surveyors drawing, and it depicted what was known at that time - that there was going to be development and golf in those general areas with a road dividing them.  Nothing more or nothing less (including accurate acreages) should be implied because they simply didn't know at that point.  So, if the acres in green and brown don't match anything, it doesn't matter - it was a generalized concept plan and not a surveyors map. (I could be wrong, but I doubt it)

On the other hand, Wilson's topos would have been prepared to show the available land for the design because final design requires more accurate information.   The date of this map and its boundary would be most instructive.  Is it possible that three years of debate here has actually hinged on the wrong document? 

TePaul, my good man, in re-reading your post, I am struck by how stuck you are on linking everything to DM's timeline, whereas I am only interested in this post about the pre and post land swap configurations. At this momemt, I can't see how the details of the land swap will in any way show that the design time line is moved forward of 11-15-1910, although I realize my opinion means nothing and as always, could be wrong.

I just look forward to a simple answer to what Wilson's topo maps show and what the deed says about where the land is.  The details of history are fascinating to me!

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  Your posts make my point for me.  You havent the least I idea what my theories are or aren't yet you continue to rant.  This latest theory (flawed as it is) is yours, not mine.  Your theory applies better to CBM's first trip than his March trip.   That doesn't mean I've accepted your theory, or even that it makes sense.  It just means it would fit better for the first trip (when they were trying to figure out if they had enough land) than the second.  As for what else you attribute to me, you are wrong.   But continue to knock yourself out fighting ghosts of your own creation and other things that aren't even in dispute.  As I said before, I am done with your remedial research and analysis 101. 

TEPaul,

1.  You are the one here who doesn't believe Francis.
2.  Despite your outrage, you are WRONG about the acreage on the 1910 plan.  You are off by probably 6 acres or more. Hire someone capable of understanding how to determine these things if you cannot figure it out yourself.   
3.   I don't think HG Lloyd was engaging in hyperbole, but he did under the meaning of "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD."

Jeff Brauer,

The reason that this is so important to them s that they know that there was a plan in 1910, but they need to minimize it as much as possible so they can claim the only thing relevant is what was done in 1911.   Putting Francis working on the plan earlier means that the basic routing was there much earlier than they are willing to admit.    The funny thing is that these guys went down this road under the mistaken impression that this is my only support for my theories.

[Mike_Cirba]

The graphic above with the two roads reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line - "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

We know a land swap took place in the general area of the last five holes and specifically on the west side of those five holes.  We can see the two road alignments - one generally proposed near the beginning of the planning process and one that evolved.  Just how much tortured thought mongering must go on to try to convince people that the land swapped was any different than what is shown?  It just seems so simple to me that I can't understand how anyone could believe that the simple, clear explanation is not the correct one. 

If a picture is worth a 1000 words, I hope anyone believing this is not the land swapped can post a graphic showing what land it really was.   I mean, its all right there in those two plans/aerial views.

Thank you, Jeff...I'm heartened that you found those aerial diagrams both instructive and clear.

After spending too long in this loony bin one starts to doubt if they really know what the meaning of "is" is.  

I just noticed in a recent post to Tom Paul you mentioned that you can't see how a design timeline is moved forward of 11/15/1910.   Do you mean backwards, or before that time?  

Again, thanks for bringing both professional credibility and just plain common sense back to this thread.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,  Your posts make my point for me.  You havent the least I idea what my theories are or aren't yet you continue to rant.  This latest theory (flawed as it is) is yours, not mine.  Your theory applies better to CBM's first trip than his March trip.   That doesn't mean I've accepted your theory, or even that it makes sense.  It just means it would fit better for the first trip (when they were trying to figure out if they had enough land) than the second.  As for what else you attribute to me, you are wrong.   But continue to knock yourself out fighting ghosts of your own creation and other things that aren't even in dispute.  As I said before, I am done with your remedial research and analysis 101. 

David,

Please show us where the last five holes were going to go in the land you say they were working with prior to Francis's late night idea.

If you don't like my illustration or think it is misreprenting the actual land available please provide your own illustration or hire someone to do one for you.

You are simply afraid to do "remedial research and analysis 101" because your theories do not hold up to the most remedial factual anaylsis.

Instead, you try to operate and maneuver the discussion to a purely theoretical, hypothetical, conjectural level while screaming for "more facts".   It's very comical, really.

Perhaps someday you'll also tell us why the Merion Committee were working on many different plans in winter/early spring 1911 and also why they created "five different plans" after their return from NGLA and prior to April 6th 1911 if the course routing was already completed six months earlier.

But nah...I should know better than to think you'll answer any such common sense questions, and it's not worthy of your time for you to be discussing anything remedial like "facts".   Your giant brain is beyond such trivial matters.   

[Mike_Cirba]

The reason that this is so important to them s that they know that there was a plan in 1910, but they need to minimize it as much as possible so they can claim the only thing relevant is what was done in 1911.   Putting Francis working on the plan earlier means that the basic routing was there much earlier than they are willing to admit.    The funny thing is that these guys went down this road under the mistaken impression that this is my only support for my theories.

David,

There was a plan in June 1910 that H.H. Barker put together, but even your own paper dismisses its importance and as you claim, we don't even know what 100 acres he was considering on his 6000 yard course.

There is no record of Maconald and Whigham creating a plan prior to Nov 10th, 1910, other than the hypothetical, generic 6,000 yard course they outlined in a single page letter where they said they thought that perhaps the land might yield a golf course that could be good, but weren't sure because of the space limitations.   We don't even know if they considered the Dallas Estate property, do we?

If your theory is correct, and the Francis Land Swap included all of the triangle, this is a conception of the land they considered when they visited in June 1910, and wrote the followup letter in July.




They likely would have considered more land directly west of the clubhouse and now covered with fine homes along Golf House Road, and they did recommend the additional three acres behind the clubhouse that I have shaded out, but that's about it, right?

Could you show me any mistakes I've made here?

Also, you allude to having additional evidence.

I would hope you'd produce it forthwith as you've spent a lot of time yelling how unfair it is for Tom Paul to not produce all the records of a private club so certainly if you have something I'd assume it's public doman and the same rules of civil discourse would apply.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I hope my sense is common. I am not quite sure. I have changed opinions numerous times on this, including having held the opinion many times that I just don't care any more.  But it always seems like we are so close to actually figuring out a real time line and putting this thing to bed.  Deep down, however, I know that the principals in this argument (rather than the prinicples) are not ready to admit that they might be wrong even on small points or budge off their "all or nothing" arguments.  You will note no one has even bothered with your last question in the first post - did CBM do enough to get partial or full design credit?  Instead, we get parsed words, fractured arguments, verbal thrashings, etc. all of which could be avoided if both sides could just agree he gets some design credit (which Merion seemingly has already given) and leave it at that.  

As to your question, I meant to phrase it that no matter where the land was swapped, I am not sure that it means that the designs did occur PRIOR to 11-15-1910.  That said, I have little doubt that the golf architecture enthusiasts within MCC doodled a lot of unofficial, never recorded routings between the Barker Plan in 1910 and the final plan after the Francis land swap in 4-1911, perhaps with occaisional aid from CBM or Whigham.  That is not really that long a time frame for a routing to evolve into a final plan. For example, I worked on a current routing from last August (when in the sales phase) and didn't settle it until about last week.  That is about the same 8 months of time MCC had from June 1910 to April 1911 - and I have routed 100 golf courses (about half of which have been built) and my property wasn't even flexible and subject to change!  IMHO, there could have/had to have been some pretty constant revision and thought going on to arrive at the final plan all throughout the period. 

[TEPaul]

"Is it possible that three years of debate here has actually hinged on the wrong document?"

Jeffrey:

No really, but at least a year's debate has hinged on the wrong event, or on the wrong interpretation of that event. Many of the actual documents and records which bear directly on all this have been constantly dismissed or ignored. But one can figure this out by accounting for land quantities at any particular time. Land doesn't get dismissed and ignored and lost, that's for sure.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Believe me, your sense is both common and far too uncommon around here!  

Your post rings true in every sense and it's greatly appreciated.

There is no doubt in my mind that Macdonald deserves some design credit and I've told David that on other threads.   I also think his paper helped to flesh out additional research that gave us a much better idea of the specific areas he helped.

It just seems to me that some also ask for that increased awareness and elevation of Macdonald's role to require the diminishment and even dissolvement of Hugh Wilson's design attribution, calling him and his committee "a bunch of novices", while not hiding in the least their disdain for the man and his incredible architectural achievements.

So, thanks for coming back to this thread, although I doubt your common sense will be appreciated as much or even tolerated by some others for very long.   I recall Shivas being essentially called on the carpet for whoring himself out for the Philadelphia interest not long ago because he stated that Macdonald's very act of "approving" one of the Merion Committee's plans proved it wasn't his own plan.

In the meantime, I'll sit on the sidelines waiting for the deeds and any other new info to surface, and am excited to see what light they can shed.

[TEPaul]

"TePaul, my good man, in re-reading your post, I am struck by how stuck you are on linking everything to DM's timeline, whereas I am only interested in this post about the pre and post land swap configurations. At this momemt, I can't see how the details of the land swap will in any way show that the design time line is moved forward of 11-15-1910, although I realize my opinion means nothing and as always, could be wrong."


Jeff:

What I have tried to show for a long time is how the essay's timeline on the swap is wrong and not necessarily the dimensions of that triangle before the sway or after it or even if the swap created it. I am not linking anything to that swap having to happen before Nov. 15. 1910. I think it is extremely unlikely to impossible the swap happened that early. The essay links the swap to Nov. 15, 1910 in that the essay says the swap had to happen BEFORE that date. It seems pretty clear from the surrounding records, documents and deeds AFTER that date (11/15/10) that the essay is too early with the swap and probably by up to five months too early. For numerous reasons that is very important to know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I agree that the swap seems to have been agreed upon and finalized late in the process.

That said, what property configuration does the Hugh Wilson working topos show?  Does it conclude what land the routing was originally trying to be squeezed into?

[TEPaul]

 
"3.   I don't think HG Lloyd was engaging in hyperbole, but he did under the meaning of "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD.""


You don't think Lloyd was engaging in hyperbole but  you think he did engage in hyperbole when he said in a Nov. 15. 1910 circular to the membership? 

“It is proposed to form on behalf of The Merion Cricket Club, a Corporation which will buy outright, the 117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked “Golf Course.”
Horatio Gates Lloyd, Nov. 15, 1910"

I see. You say he didn't engage in hyperbole but then he did engage in hyperbole? Interesing theory!



"2.  Despite your outrage, you are WRONG about the acreage on the 1910 plan.  You are off by probably 6 acres or more. Hire someone capable of understanding how to determine these things if you cannot figure it out yourself."


I'm not outraged in the slightest, I merely think the contentions you made in your essay are very wrong and that it's very important to know why.  How is it you determine either me or Lloyd are off by 6 acres or more on the land in green on that 11/15/10 plan that is marked "Golf Course" and delineated on the western side of the top of the L by the words "approximate road?" 



"1.  You are the one here who doesn't believe Francis."


I do believe Francis. I just don't believe your interpretation of when that land swap and his idea of it took place.

[TEPaul]

"Jeff Brauer,
The reason that this is so important to them s that they know that there was a plan in 1910."


Jeff:

We certainly know there was a land plan for a proposed golf course in 1910. We've been looking at on here for ages. What we also do know is if there was any kind of plan for a golf course on that land in 1910 no one has ever mentioned such a thing, at least no one who ever had anything to do with the creation of that golf course. On the other hand the club certainly did record the fact there were numerous plans for the course done after the Wilson committee formed. 

[TEPaul]

"Putting Francis working on the plan earlier means that the basic routing was there much earlier than they are willing to admit.    The funny thing is that these guys went down this road under the mistaken impression that this is my only support for my theories."


Jeff:

Putting Francis out there working on that land plan does not necessarily mean that the basic routing was there much earlier. On the other hand,  you should try to tell me why YOU think Francis was put out there in 1910 working on that land by the essayist when there has never been any evidence at all of that. Let's at least see if we can get on the same page on that. 


But we should just get back to the basic facts here that we can prove and that are uncontested by all and just work this thing back up. I don't think it is hard to do that at all and it shouldn't take long. If we do that I think we all will see what happened here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba
There was a plan in June 1910 that H.H. Barker put together, but even your own paper dismisses its importance and as you claim, we don't even know what 100 acres he was considering on his 6000 yard course.

Mike, TE, David, et. al.,

Do we know what the Barker plan was ?

How does it differ from the initial plan that was adopted ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

No, unfortunately no one does.

All we know is that he produced a routing for a 6000 yard course on about 100 acres of property.   We're not even sure which 100 acres because large portions that were eventually used for the first course such as the Dallas Estate, the 3 acres behind the clubhouse, any land garnered from the Francis Land Swap and the fact that he was brought in by Connell and therefore could have sited his proposed course on any of Connell's 300 plus acres in theory make it difficult to determine exactly what he might have been considering and recommending.

We also know there is no further mention of Barker or his plan beyond that, that Macdonald and WHigham came in after him, and that various plans followed throughout early 1911 until a final one was approved April 19th, 1911.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Putting Francis working on the plan earlier means that the basic routing was there much earlier than they are willing to admit.    The funny thing is that these guys went down this road under the mistaken impression that this is my only support for my theories."


Jeff:

Putting Francis out there working on that land plan does not necessarily mean that the basic routing was there much earlier. On the other hand, Jeff, you should try to tell me why YOU think Francis was put out there in 1910 working on that land by the essayist when there has never been any evidence at all of that. Let's at least see if we can get on the same page on that. 

You are confusing me with DM. Now, with all due respect, cut that out!
And, if you can, please let us know what the metes and bounds or Wilson's working topo map show as the originally planned boundardy, as opposed to that cocept rendering.

Upon thinking about it, I figure the topo plan was created right after the land purchase along with the boundary of the entire 338 acres, as would be typical.  CBM mentions not having the topo map in front of him when he sent the letter after his June 1910 visit.  That said, just because the topo map was done for purchase, doesn't mean the planning started earlier.  But, whatever notations are on Wilson's version should give a pretty good clue as to what boundaries they were considering using in the golf course before the land swap, wouldn't it?