Merion's Early Timeline

[TEPaul]

"We also know that Lloyd actually purchased 161 acres in December 1910, which included the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas Estate.

I don't agree with TEPaul's understanding of what was happening here."


Well, we have Horatio Gates Lloyd's deed to that effect and that sure trumps your speculations and day! 

[TEPaul]

"The idea was this:  We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout, perhaps we could swap for some we could use?"


WE had some property west of the present course??? What property was that? Does that sound like property LLOYD owned at the time of do you think Francis was talking about the remaining 200 acres of HDC?   

[DMoriarty]

A bit more on this FRAGMENT of the Cuyler letter.   TEPaul has repeatedly referred to the Cuyler letter over the past year in support of two of his claims.

1.   Lloyd controlled the entire property and could do with it what he pleased.
2.   The Francis land swap must have happened later, because the letter allows for changes to be made later. 

If fact, the letter establishes that:   Lloyd did not control the property at all, but was holding title as an agent for HDC.

Also, unless there is a misprint or a context that has not been provided, the letter also evidences that the land swaps had already taken place. 

The letter doesn't say that changes might be needed, or that maybe the boundaries will change, it says:

 "It was found advisable that the Haverford Development Co. should take title in Mr. Lloyd's name, so that the lines be revised subsequently"   

At the time of the letter, they already needed to revise the "lines."      It wasn't a prospective safety devise, it was a retrospective cure.   

TEPaul, is there a typo or something contextual that changes this, or is my understanding correct? 

________________________________


Tom Paul, as for your last few posts, I suggest you read my post below.  You misunderstand the nature of Lloyd's ownership interest.  Lloyd was a placeholder or agent for HDC.  He may have had legal title, but he did not have control.


Here it is again, in relevant portion: 

As for Lloyd, I don't deny that the legal title was in his name for the land, but I think you misunderstand his role in this process.  My understanding is that he was a bridge, a guarantor, and/or was holding collateral, and that he had legal obligations concerning this land to HDC, MCC, or both.   A little like a bank holding a deed, only in a business setting. 

I explained this in detail to Wayne shortly after my essay was published.

Take a look at the fragment of the Cuyler letter that you have finally brought forward (my bold):

"It was found advisable that the Haverford Development Co. should take title in Mr. Lloyd's name, so that the lines be revised subsequently"

It doesn't say that Lloyd took title.  It says that HDC is taking title in Lloyd's name.   In other words Lloyd is taking title on behalf of Haverford Development Company.   As their agent, and with fiduciary obligations to them.   This is entirely different than what you have claimed, that Lloyd himself took title. 

Also, you have speculated that Lloyd held onto the other 40+ acres when he transferred some of the land back to Freeman who transferred it to MCC.    I think you are wrong here as well.   I think the remaining acreage went to HDC.  It wasn't his land.  It was  HDC's.

Also, I think  you are mistaken that Lloyd controlled HDC.  He and others recapitalized the stock, but I do not think that he or they took a majority interest. 
 
By the way, what property, exactly, is the Cuylers letter referring to?  The Dallas Estate,  the HDC property, or both?   It could go either way. 

And what does the letter say about what had been planned?

[TEPaul]

"Mike,

I am still interested in the Haverford College boundary markers on the current Google map.  Both the west and the south would be good.  Two on each axis.  Sorry for being tiresome.    I guess I'm still not convinced that there wasn't 130 yards there."


Bryan and Mike:

I really don't get this. We have the Merion deeds right here throughout the last century that have exact metes and bounds on them and so what the hell are you guys using Google Earth and pretty colored lines to try to determine accurate dimensions?  

Are you two birds questioning the dimensionsal accuracy of Merion's DEEDS or is it just that you don't know or appreciate what they say?

[DMoriarty]

WE had some property west of the present course??? What property was that? Does that sound like property LLOYD owned at the time of do you think Francis was talking about the remaining 200 acres of HDC?   

I think he is talking about the western portion of the 100 acres HDC  had offered them for a golf course. 

[TEPaul]

"I think he is talking about the western portion of the 100 acres HDC  had offered them for a golf course."

Right, and who do you think owned it when Francis had his idea for a swap?





"I think he is talking about the western portion of the 100 acres HDC  had offered them for a golf course. "


That's totally incorrect. HDC didn't offer MCC 100 acres through Lloyd; HDC offered MCC 117 acres through Lloyd and MCC president Evans after consulting with the board accepted HDC's offer. The very next step which Evan's agreed to with HDC is the immediate setting up of a corporation to eventually receive the land and lease it to MCC. Have you any idea who the president of the newly formed Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation was or should I provide you with a multiple choice answer? Where are you getting this 100 acre idea? would it be in June 1910 when Connell mentioned that to Lesley/Loyd etc?

[DMoriarty]

"I think he is talking about the western portion of the 100 acres HDC  had offered them for a golf course."

Right, and who do you think owned it when Francis had his idea for a swap?

H.D.C. 

The swap occurred before any purchase took place.

[Bryan Izatt]

"Mike,

I am still interested in the Haverford College boundary markers on the current Google map.  Both the west and the south would be good.  Two on each axis.  Sorry for being tiresome.    I guess I'm still not convinced that there wasn't 130 yards there."


Bryan and Mike:

I really don't get this. We have the Merion deeds right here throughout the last century that have exact metes and bounds on them and so what the hell are you guys using Google Earth and pretty colored lines to try to determine accurate dimensions?  

Are you two birds questioning the dimensionsal accuracy of Merion's DEEDS or is it just that you don't know or appreciate what they say?

I don't get why you don't get it.  I know you have the Merion deeds.  I know I don't.  I have the maps from 1908, 1910 and 1913.  I think the location of the boundary is suspect on the 1910 map as I try to relate it to the current boundaries.  You tell me the 1913 map is suspect.  One way to resolve my lack of the exact knowledge is for you to provide me the metes and bounds you have.  So far you haven't, as is your right.  Mike says he has the locations of the bounds and offered to put them on the current Google map.  That'd be another way for me and others to have the knowledge of the exact locations.  If I lived in PA, I guess I could go to the County office and get the metes and bounds, but I don't.  Since a lot of the recent debate has been about dimensions, it'd be nice to have some anchors we could all agree on.  No, I'm not questioning the accuracy of the deeds.  I'd just like to know where the bounds were.  There are no nefarious purposes.

[Mark Pearce]

THIS is a document David Moriarty had never seen and was totally unaware of when he wrote his essay.   It's a document explained to him many times but he denies it.  

The tone of this thread (particularly the contributions of Mike and David) has improved enormously over the past couple of pages and made it both readable and interesting again.  Thank you gentlement.  I'm concerned by this comment, though, Tom.  You refer to a document David was not aware of when he wrote his essay and then state that it has been "explained" to him many times.  Has he seen the document, or a copy of it?  If not and given the tone and nature of most of the Merion "debate" over the past months, I can appreciate why he might not accept your statement as to what the document says without confirming it for himself.  I'm not saying you are wrong as to what it says, merely pointing out that I can understand why David might not simply accept that.  Of course there's one way to make sure we all are sure what the document says.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Earlier you mentioned an article written about the 6th hole where it describes it in ways we both agree sound like Road Hole principles could have been used.   If you're not willing to identify your source yet, could you at least date that article for us?

I'm also assuming that you have additional evidence of your land claims besides "taking Francis at his word".  We know the Johnson Farm was 140 acres, so quite large enough in and of itself to hold the golf course, including primo land up above the quarry that you claim that whoever advised them on which land to choose somehow never identified.

It just seems rather convenient to me that your western boundary is movable...for instance, if I move it eastward a half inch, I probably have 105 acres, or westward and I have 130.   Something isn't passing the sniff test here for me, honestly, and meaning no offense, if you have more evidence and info, I think we should keep moving forward with the discussion.    But I have to think that one of the primary things anyone laying out a course has to keep in mind at all times is how much land they have left to work with.   I can't imagine laying out 12 holes, already having to cross Ardmore Avenue 3 times to fit things in, and then coming over and thinking..."oops!".   "Perhaps I can squeeze a par three over behind the clubhouse, but then what?   I've already said I'm not using any land northwest above Ardmore Ave. for reasons I can't yet fathom, but if I have my mind made up to only use this narrow section, I don't see it happening!?!   LLLLOOOYYYDDDD!!!!!"     Seriously, I can't imagine any designer worth his salt making such a novice mistake.   

You also seem to be largely writing off Macdonald at this point, or perhaps simply think he made revisions to Barker's plan, am I correct?  Would I also be correct to assume that we are largely writing off the Nov 15, 1910 Land Plan as evidentiary at this point, even though you used it in your White Paper to assert that the existence of a triangle meant that the swap must have happened before then?

I would think that you'd have to, because at this point we see that the dimensions of that triangle on the Land Swap map are not 130x190 as Francis claimed;  as Tom Paul points out they are about 95X300!   If Francis did his work before then this evidence certainly doesn't back up his claim any longer.

If you'd rather not continue to debate what holes could fit into which land I would simply state that the four questions I asked in my first post on this thread still remain completely unanswered.  Could you give them a shot?

Thanks

Bryan,

I think you misunderstood me.   I don't have the metres and bounds either.    When I was talking about property boundary under the trees I was referring to the fact that I believe the original dimension of the triange from the inside of the road to have been about 130 yards, (as opposed to 95 on the 1910 Land Plan) and with the additional "triangle" sold to them by Haverford College in 1928 that made the bottom of the triangle 155 yards, and there are in fact stakes under and along the treeline on the left of 16 as you come off the tee for the first part of the hole.   

Yesterday I tried to map from Haverford Ave., and from the Railroad tracks back to that line using the dimensions on the 1910 map.   I don't know if I screwed up something but I couldn't get close.

I'll look at it again today.

Hope tihis helps explain things.

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

I question a couple of the latest theories -

Why does TePaul think that MCC basically got the entire Johnson Farm and that this was the proposed boundary line?  It makes some sense, but on the other hand, the 100-120 acre/6000-6200 yard debate on land/length was (I think) pretty hot topic in those days. Why couldn't they have just drawn the line to get MCC the easternmost 117 acres, leaving the rest for development?

Why does DM assert that MCC traded back more than they got AND then paid for 3 more acres?  That makes no sense to me, but as always, I could be wrong.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba wrote:
Earlier you mentioned an article written about the 6th hole where it describes it in ways we both agree sound like Road Hole principles could have been used.   If you're not willing to identify your source yet, could you at least date that article for us?

It seems there are two different discussions and I am just trying to stick to one, as opposed to confusing the conversation.  I don't do this full time and it is enough trouble just dealing with your questions on one topic, much less two.  The quote is from they NY Times from 1916, and I think we've discussed part of this article before.  I'll give you the complete cite when I get a chance.   And I will start a thread on it, but can only handle one thread at a time, given the demands

I'm also assuming that you have additional evidence of your land claims besides "taking Francis at his word".  We know the Johnson Farm was 140 acres, so quite large enough in and of itself to hold the golf course, including primo land up above the quarry that you claim that whoever advised them on which land to choose somehow never identified.

Mike, something close to 23-27 acres of the Johnson property land was either too narrow along Ardmore Avenue of was complete set off from the rest of the course.  So you have the 14 acres up in the corner and what I have proposed was the 100 acres offered.  That is it.

It just seems rather convenient to me . . .

Sorry Mike, I don't hve time to deal with anything that is based on what "just seems rather convenient to" you.  If you have a factual issue that hasn't been addressed, I'll try to address it.

You also seem to be largely writing off Macdonald at this point, or perhaps simply think he made revisions to Barker's plan, am I correct?  Would I also be correct to assume that we are largely writing off the Nov 15, 1910 Land Plan as evidentiary at this point, even though you used it in your White Paper to assert that the existence of a triangle meant that the swap must have happened before then?

You'd be incorrect on both counts

I would think that you'd have to, because at this point we see that the dimensions of that triangle on the Land Swap map are not 130x190 as Francis claimed;  as Tom Paul points out they are about 95X300!   If Francis did his work before then this evidence certainly doesn't back up his claim any longer.

? ? ?

If you'd rather not continue to debate what holes could fit into which land I would simply state that the four questions I asked in my first post on this thread still remain completely unanswered.  Could you give them a shot?

They are really rhetorical questions requiring assumptions that I am not willing to make and so there is nothing really to answer.

______________________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer wrote:
"Why does DM assert that MCC traded back more than they got AND then paid for 3 more acres?  That makes no sense to me, but as always, I could be wrong."

I think the "trade" for the land up in the corner took place before they ever bought anything, when they were just trying to see if the course course could fit.   So they didn't pay for 3 extra acres.  They got 3+ acres that had not been originally offered and they didn't buy 7+ acres of what was originally offered, but it was all worked out long before they purchased anything.

[TEPaul]

"Sure, I agree they are not as accurate as professional surveyors, but, I also don't believe that they are wrong by almost 100% (from 18 to 32 acres)."


Bryan:

OK, let's try this; we'll compare my methodology against your methodolgy. I sure don't know how to measure off Google Earth but I do know how to use the incremental land sizes off accurate metes and bounds on totals and I do know how to read the acreage listed on deeds!    I used to sell real estate and sometimes we actually had to go through all the metes and bounds with potential clients and at title offices during settlements. Reading through the sequence of any property's metes and bounds is some incredibly boring shit but somebody has to do it!  And that is why most all transfers require title insurance; most all mortgage companies demand it anyway and clients are protected too. If all properties were as disputed as Merion's borders are on here I will guarantee you there isn't a title insurance company that wouldn't go broke!!

Tell me when you're ready.

[TEPaul]

"thank you.  that is about the best and most concise analysis of at least one side of this whole thing that I could ever imagine.

I would BEG anybody who questions this analysis to work from this.  that way, everybody else who hasn't been able to follow the whole thing will know what the heck you guys are talking about."



Shivas:

Is that the way you'd like to see this done? No problem at all; I would be MORE than happy to show you how those who question the analysis in post #501 believe it to be wrong in almost all of what it contends.

You tell me when YOU'RE ready. 
 

[JESII]

I think I can safely speak for Shivas and say we are all ready.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

You mentioned you measure the land north of my red line at 14 acres?   I don't recall exactly but didn't you measure the rectangle of Johnson farm property?   How about the narro stretch along Ardmore?    

I am trying to back out the land that I don't think was offered to get the acreage of the land offered, and by doing so I think I get within a few yards of the 100 I think was offered.  

Do you agree?  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Don't worry, we will take it real slow. There needs to be agreement on various points made to take it to the next level of explanation.

Before we even begin I might get Bryan to measure various things on that aerial of the land in post #501 because as we proceed we will need agreement on the size of any increment or the totals of the property will never match up accurately and we know what the totals were off all the 11-12 deeds of Merion East from beginning until this date.

[TEPaul]

"I am trying to back out the land that I don't think was offered to get the acreage of the land offered, and by doing so I think I get within a few yards of the 100 I think was offered."

I am not using any measuring tools and I never even tried to total up the metes and bounds dimension of that far western section of the Old Johnson property; again Lloyd bought that because he bought the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm, but just using the total acreage on the two appropriate deeds (Lloyd received title for 161 acres on Dec 19, 1910 and then passing it back to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporate (which he was the president of ; ) ) at 120.1 acres on July 21, 1910 I will bet that far section of the Johnson Farm across Ardemore Ave from the 2nd hole that was never considered by anyone for golf will measure out right around the 23 acres I mentioned in post #463.

Bryan, I will also caution you that using those PRR Plat maps are nowhere near as accurate dimensionally sometimes and title metes and bounds are, and I think you understand that know after I explained what that 1913 PRR Plat map did with that Eaton property we were discussing yesterday. You do understand how they made a dimensional mistake, don't you? If not I'd be glad to explain it to you again.

I have no idea how this will all play out but I believe this is the way to do it. In the process we will also need to use JUST the facts from Merions deeds and Merion's recording of all the events from June 1910 until July of 1911. Speculation in this process should be immediately thrown out!

[JESII]

Fair enough...a question though; is it possible the deeds do not exactly match up, timing wise, with when an event may have happened? It's a serious question.

[TEPaul]

"I am trying to back out the land that I don't think was offered to get the acreage of the land offered, and by doing so I think I get within a few yards of the 100 I think was offered."


I'm going to need accuracy through this and so that statement might need a bit of good old fashioned house-cleaning as I never heard anyone contend that HDC offered MCC 100 YARDS!

If they did that Connell must have been some negotiator, Huh, or maybe just into some super miniature golf and architecture?

If you are trying to back anything out of any of this at any time you probably need to go back and very carefully consider post #463. 

 

[TEPaul]

"Fair enough...a question though; is it possible the deeds do not exactly match up, timing wise, with when an event may have happened? It's a serious question."


Sully:

I'm not sure what you mean there. What kind of example of "an event" are you thinking of?

Would it be the timing of the Francis land swap for instance?

I've got to go mow the lower forty. See you'all later.

[Bryan Izatt]

...................................

Bryan,

I think you misunderstood me.   I don't have the metres and bounds either.  I misunderstood.  I'm so sad.  I really thought that we could pin down that boundary.      When I was talking about property boundary under the trees I was referring to the fact that I believe the original dimension of the triange from the inside of the road to have been about 130 yards, (as opposed to 95 on the 1910 Land Plan) and with the additional "triangle" sold to them by Haverford College in 1928 that made the bottom of the triangle 155 yards, and there are in fact stakes under and along the treeline on the left of 16 as you come off the tee for the first part of the hole.   

Yesterday I tried to map from Haverford Ave., and from the Railroad tracks back to that line using the dimensions on the 1910 map.   I don't know if I screwed up something but I couldn't get close.  Yeah, I couldn't get it right either.  That was the genesis of my interest in locating the boundary.  I think the scaling is off on the 1910 map in other places as I've discussed in previous posts.  I was trying to pin down the Haverford College boundary to either confirm or deny another measurement discrepancy.  Can you not get Tom to show you the metes and bounds and then you can put them on the Google map?  The metes and bounds are public information, so there shouldn't be any of the angst about protecting the privacy of Merion.



I'll look at it again today.

Hope tihis helps explain things.

Thanks

[Bryan Izatt]

"Sure, I agree they are not as accurate as professional surveyors, but, I also don't believe that they are wrong by almost 100% (from 18 to 32 acres)."


Bryan:

OK, let's try this; we'll compare my methodology against your methodolgy. I sure don't know how to measure off Google Earth but I do know how to use the incremental land sizes off accurate metes and bounds on totals and I do know how to read the acreage listed on deeds!    I used to sell real estate and sometimes we actually had to go through all the metes and bounds with potential clients and at title offices during settlements. Reading through the sequence of any property's metes and bounds is some incredibly boring shit but somebody has to do it!  And that is why most all transfers require title insurance; most all mortgage companies demand it anyway and clients are protected too. If all properties were as disputed as Merion's borders are on here I will guarantee you there isn't a title insurance company that wouldn't go broke!!

Tell me when you're ready.

Ready. 

My methodology is to overlay the boundaries from a map (say the 193 RR map) on to the current Google map and then use the Google planimeter to calculate the acreage.  I have in the past demonstrated that the Google maps and satellite images are accurate to less than a yard in measuring distances.  I think the acreage I get are good to +/- a percent or two.

What's your methodology for calculating land sizes off of metes and bounds.

I measured the area that you requested from Golf House Road to the western boundary of the Johnson farm (not including the strip along Ardmore to the west or the rectangle north of Ardmore to the west of the strip) and got 32 acres.  You say it was 18 acres.  I've described how I got 32 acres.  How did you measure it at 18 acres?  There is no way that this discrepance results from methodological differences.  Perhaps we're not measuring the same thing.

[TEPaul]

"The tone of this thread (particularly the contributions of Mike and David) has improved enormously over the past couple of pages and made it both readable and interesting again.  Thank you gentlement.  I'm concerned by this comment, though, Tom.  You refer to a document David was not aware of when he wrote his essay and then state that it has been "explained" to him many times.  Has he seen the document, or a copy of it?  If not and given the tone and nature of most of the Merion "debate" over the past months, I can appreciate why he might not accept your statement as to what the document says without confirming it for himself.  I'm not saying you are wrong as to what it says, merely pointing out that I can understand why David might not simply accept that.  Of course there's one way to make sure we all are sure what the document says."


Mark Pearce:

The tone? I did no more than just state a few facts. They're all true as could be. Is there something wrong with just stating the facts of this whole  year long campaign of Moriarty's to prove something that never happened with his essay "The Missing Faces of Merion"? There are a number of documents he never saw before he wrote his essay. He'll confirm that himself. Some of them even we didn't know existed until after his essay and that is why Wayne Morrison and a couple of guys from both Merion Golf Club and MCC went over to MCC and found some documents that probably haven't been looked at by anyone in a century.

If David Moriarty wants to write some revisionist article we don't agree with at all, do you have some problem with David Moriarty taking the time and effort himself to find all the research material he should've had that Wayne Morrison found later? And if so why would that be? Why should Wayne Morrison be expected to do all Moriarty's research work for him particularly given Moriarty's "TONE" towards Wayne throughout all this even including on this particular thread about five months AFTER Wayne left GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?

If Moriarty doesn't like what we say or trust what we say about material we have let him go look at it himself, as we have.

[Rich Goodale]

I've got to go mow the lower forty. See you'all later.

Tom

This may be slightly off topic, but when you mow the lower 40 is it with the same equipment and to the same specs as when you mow the upper 40 (or the left 40, or right 40, or middle 40, for that matter)?  What do each of the 40's stimp at under Ideal Maintenance Meld conditions?  If they differ, how so and why so?

Thanking you in advance.

Rich