[Bryan Izatt]

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?  

I have measured the north rectangle of the Johnson Farm at 14 acres +/- and the area from the current road to the western boundary of the Johnson farm at 32 acres +/-.  I have not measured the L shaped segment north of Ardmore and west of the course.  I will when I get a chance.  Could I suggest that you you take your Google aerial and put a colour bound around that L shaped area and then label each of your areas of interest with a letter (A, B, C etc.) it'd be a lot easier to refer to the various segments by letter and therefore for all of us to have the same understanding of what area we're referring to.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Rich,

Surely the questions on this thread about the lower 40 are:

Is it really 40?  Has he checked the metes and bounds?

Could he really have fit 6 holes within the bounds of the lower 40?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Thanks for the NY Times article info.

As we progress, I don't want to forget to ask you more about your contention that you believe the Nov 1910 Land Plan is still worthy of evidentiary consideration, as well as how you contend you aren't writing off Macdonald if you believe that the course was routed prior to his arrival, but for now I'll sit back and listen to you all discuss metres and bounds.

Bryan,

I'll see what I can get this weekend.   Sorry to disappoint, but I'll see what's available.

Thanks for all of your ongoing help with this.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

Surely the questions on this thread about the lower 40 are:

Is it really 40?  Has he checked the metes and bounds?

Could he really have fit 6 holes within the bounds of the lower 40?

Tom is so short off the tee he could have fit 36 holes within the bounds of the lower 40.  Of course, he is so good, he'd hold the Lower Forty course record even against Tiger Woods and my best ball.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

What is "the lower forty" anyway? To me it comes from that old song by Bobby Gentry, or whatever her name was, called "The Tallahachee Bridge." Remember that one---about the night some girl jumped off the Tallahachee Bridge? Do you think we should have a 30 page discussion of why that girl jumped off the Tallahachee Bridge BEFORE we pin down when Poor Richard Francis's late night 15th and 16th brilliant brainfart idea happened? I feel pretty strongly that I know why that girl jumped off the Tallahachee Bridge but I have no doubt at all that Moriarty will disagree with me and demand that I produce Bobby Gentry's original lyrics so he can analyze them for himself to determine what they mean and exactly why that girl jumped off the Tallahacee Bridge.

Wait a minute!! Maybe it wasn't a girl who jumped off the Tallahachee Bridge. I think it was Billy Jo McCallister who jumped off the Tallachachee Bridge.

Jeeesus what a PUZZLE. It may be more of a puzzle than who really designed Merion East! Do you think Billy Jo MacCallister was a boy or a girl? Where the hell is that damn Bobby Gentry today anyway? I think we all need to interview her to get to the bottom of what the sex of the person who jumped off the Tallahachee Bridge was. I think Moriarty will maintain that Billy Jo MacCallister was in fact a young man and the reason he jumped off the Tallahachee Bridge is he found out he was pregnant and jumping off the Tallahachee Bridge just seemed to him like his most reasonable option.

Personally, I think he should've reconsidered and maybe just moved to New York City where these kinds of things are more acceptable than they are in the Ozarks.

Of are they? The Ozarks is a pretty wild place actually. Have you spent any time there Richard the Magnificent?

[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.

[TEPaul]

Bryan Izatt, the Immaculate Google Earth Measurer;


Would you mind measuring that triangle in green on post #501? If it's a triangle of 130x190 (a triangle at 130x190??, that sounds suspiciously like a rectangle to me  ) it should measure out to a tad more than five acres. Is Five acres the same thing as three acres?

[TEPaul]

"but for now I'll sit back and listen to you all discuss metres and bounds."


Mr. Cirba:

I will have no inaccuracies on this thread henceforth like that remark of yours. NONE. It's UNACCEPTABLE and it is JUST NOT what people in America trying to engage in CIVIL DISCOURSE DO!

It is METES (like "MEETS") and bounds you wonker. It's not metres. No wonder your colorful lines on these aerials have totally flunked Google Earth Measuring 101 class.

You probably didn't even realize there are two feet to the yard or seven feet to the yard depending on what fallacious point you want to make about Merion East at any particular time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I didn't ridicule David for suggesting it might be a Road Hole.

I merely made what I thought was a good spirited comment about "Hugh Wilson" designing it.

Its certainly plausible.

I just wonder how long you'd tolerate someone attacking you and your historical research, at say, Garden City almost daily on a website you chose to leave months ago?

Mike, I've chided/reprimanded both sides.

On more than one occassion I've stated that the back and forth nonsense is inhibiting/prohibiting collaboration which could result in positive, informative results.

It seems that all parties are keenly interested in the subjects at hand and that all the parties have taken the time and made the effort to conduct research on the topics at hand.  Now, if they could just work together, perhaps tremendous progress and interesting revelations could be made.

Where's your righteous indignation' or Shivas's for that matter?

I've expressed it on more than one occassion.
Perhaps you chose to ignore it because you thought I was advocating for CBM  

When did it become proper to attack people in their backyards here?

Backyard, frontyard, sideyard, railyard, what difference does it make, the personal potshots on both sides are detracting from the effort. 

[Bryan Izatt]

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?  

I have measured the north rectangle of the Johnson Farm at 14 acres +/- and the area from the current road to the western boundary of the Johnson farm at 18 acres +/-.  I have not measured the L shaped segment north of Ardmore and west of the course.  I will when I get a chance.  Could I suggest that you you take your Google aerial and put a colour bound around that L shaped area and then label each of your areas of interest with a letter (A, B, C etc.) it'd be a lot easier to refer to the various segments by letter and therefore for all of us to have the same understanding of what area we're referring to.

 

And, the measurement is in for the fat L land never considered for the golf course, is 20 acres+/-.

And, in thanks to Tom who has raised my status from brainfart  to Immaculate Google Earth Measurer,  (although I understand that my descent to brainfart status is only a post away) the area of the green "triangle" (that isn't a triangle) is 3 acres +/-.  Now, a real right angle triangle of 190 x 130 would only be 2.5 acres+/-.  And what if he really meant an isosceles triangle?

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

Thank you very much for those immaculate GOOGLE EARTHING measurements.

Here is Richard Francis's remarks about the area he was referring to that he solved the problem of on #15 and #16."


"Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."


Can we now agree that Richard Francis did not say that the triangle was a right angle triangle or an isosoceles triangle?


"Now, a real right angle triangle of 190 x 130 would only be 2.5 acres+/-.  And what if he really meant an isosceles triangle?"


I would prefer just basically facts and not a bunch of "what ifs". Can we also agree that Richard Francis did not seem to be specific about what he meant when he said the land exchanged was for land about 130 yards wide and 190 yards long, and that he did not say those dimensions created the entire triangle?

Also, would you mind measuring the dimension on the right that runs from College Ave. to the southwestern corner of the Haverford College land? I walked that the other day and I got right around 300 yards. Can we admit that that area is part of that triangle in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan? I actually measured the top widths along parts of the top of that triangle on the Nov. 15, 1910 land plan and walked the top of the western side of it the other day and I could see that width would have taken the livingroom off the house of my friends Bob and Joanie Hall! (but that's another story that I should tell another time as shortly after that I actually saw Bob Hall having lunch at Merion and I explained this to him)! Can we also admit that around 300 yards on one side of a triangle is not the same thing as 190 yards on one side of a triangle?



PS:
By the way, a brainfart can be a spectacular thing to be and I meant it as I compliment. Some of the world's greatest and most improbable ideas are the result of brainfarts by brainfarts. It's actually a sudden explosion of previously pent up ideas that should never be pent up in the first place.

[TEPaul]

"I have measured the north rectangle of the Johnson Farm at 14 acres +/- and the area from the current road to the western boundary of the Johnson farm at 18 acres +/-. "


Bryan:

Thank you; that is most interesting to me. Please see my post #463 and where and why I mentioned the number 18 and then before proceeding further, let's see if we are on the same page here as to exactly what and where we mean by the measurement of 18 acres.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, 

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

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

Hope this helps.

________________________________________

You guys are a bunch of city slickers.

A “forty” is a rural term of art used to connote a common division of property.   Land is divided into “Sections” or square miles, 640 acres, with the borders running exactly north-south and east-west.   Sections are divided into “Quarters” of 160 acres each, and Quarters are often divided in half or in quarter, and a half Quarter is called  an “eighty” and a quarter Quarter is called a “forty.”   You can tell how many of these units a particular landowner has by how he describes them.   So if TEPaul has a “lower forty” (also called a “south forty”) he must necessarily also have an upper forty (or “north forty.”)   So he has an eighty.    Had he only forty acres, it would be called the forty.    Had he a full Quarter, he would have to call  this forty something like the southwest forty, because he would have two lower forties, or a lower eighty.    A “forty” is also an urban and campus term of art used to connote a 40 oz. bottle of beer, oftentimes a malt liquor and usually none too expensive.   Not sure to which TEPaul is referring.

____________________________________

TEPaul,  above you wrote:

"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!"

Yet in your post you ask us to agree to a number of things that are pure speculation on your part.   

To keep us on track, I've edited out the speculation, and this is the fact you have listed thus far:   

[According to Tolhurt's book, in 1950 Francis wrote:]
"The land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."

As for the rest, it is all either misleading, irrelevant, of supposition.

For example, while I agree that he did not call the area a triangle, I do not agree that he meant it was rectangular.

I do not agree that he was not specific when he described the land merion received.   He provides approximate dimensions and what was built on the land.   While he doesn't specify the exact shape, he is otherwise very specific, and there just happens to be a piece of land that matches his description, thus confirming that this is the land to which he was referring. 

In other words, the lack of specificity as to the exact shape is no reason to assume that Francis was not being specific as to the rest of his description.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Don't you think it's relevant to the debate on when the land swap happened to determine why the November 1910 Land Plan had dimensions closer to 95x300 in that triangle area rather than the 130x190 that Francis described?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Don't you think it's relevant to the debate on when the land swap happened to determine why the November 1910 Land Plan had dimensions closer to 95x300 in that triangle area rather than the 130x190 that Francis described?

No.  Because assuming that this map represented the exact dimensions of the land before the swap is pure speculation on your part.  Not only that but it is unsupported by the map (which has more than 117 acres going to MCC) and by the scale, and by Francis.   If we are leaving out speculation, then we certainly must leave this out.

[Mike_Cirba]

[
No.  Because assuming that this map represented the exact dimensions of the land before the swap is pure speculation on your part.  Not only that but it is unsupported by the map (which has more than 117 acres going to MCC) and by the scale, and by Francis.   If we are leaving out speculation, then we certainly must leave this out.

Actually, I'm not speculating anything really.   I'm more than happy to stipulate that it's merely a rough land plan put together prior to any routing, and prior to the Francis Land Swap.

I'm just stating that if your contention is that both the routing and the Francis Land Swap happened before that November 1910 Land Swap, then I should think it would be very dimensionally accurate by that point because it would be very, very clear where the golf course was going and where the real estate component was going.

[DMoriarty]

Actually, I'm not speculating anything really.   I'm more than happy to stipulate that it's merely a rough land plan put together prior to any routing, and prior to the Francis Land Swap.

I'm just stating that if your contention is that both the routing and the Francis Land Swap happened before that November 1910 Land Swap, then I should think it would be very dimensionally accurate by that point because it would be very, very clear where the golf course was going and where the real estate component was going.

And this would be pure speculation on your part, and speculation that really isn't supported by any facts of which I am aware.

[Mike_Cirba]

And this would be pure speculation on your part, and speculation that really isn't supported by any facts of which I am aware.

Are you saying I'm speculating that your contention is both the routing and that Francis Land Swap happened before Nov 1910 (and relatedly, probably before June 1910 I believe you stated yesterday), OR are you saying I'm speculating that had those two events occurred before Nov 1910 that it follows the November 15th, 1910 map would be measurably accurate and reflective of those events?

[DMoriarty]

Are you saying I'm speculating that your contention is both the routing and that Francis Land Swap happened before Nov 1910 (and relatedly, probably before June 1910 I believe you stated yesterday), OR are you saying I'm speculating that had those two events occurred in the timeframes you contend that it follows the November 15th, 1910 map would be measurably accurate and reflective of those events?

The latter.   And mike, i did not say that they both probably occurred before June 1910.    First, "before June 1910" would put us in May or before.   I said before July 1, 1910.  Second, you aren't accurately reflecting what I said might or might not have happened before July 1, 1910.  Maybe you should just let me speak for myself.

[Mike_Cirba]

The latter.   And mike, i did not say that they both probably occurred before June 1910.    First, "before June 1910" would put us in May or before.   I said before July 1, 1910. 

Thanks for clarifying.   I went back and read what you wrote yesterday and I'm clearer.

I will assume going forward that you mean both the routing and Francis Land Swap happened between June 1910 and November 1910, most likely in the summer.

Please allow me another question...

Given that we both agree the November 15th 1910 Land Plan is not an accurate document, even though probably for differing reasons, do you think we should throw it out as evidence?

In other words, by definition its clear inaccuracy makes drawing any relevant conclusions from it very suspect, wouldn't you agree?

[TEPaul]

" You say it was 32 acres.  I've described how I got 18 acres.  How did you measure it at 32 acres?"

Bryan:

Where did you see me mention anything about 32 acres?

[TEPaul]

"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."


Bryan:

I know some of you guys don't trust the dimensions on the Nov. 15, 1910 particularly the "approximate road" so we don't need to use that one for measurements. I just wanted you to use the aerial on post #501 that shows the actual Club House Road, as built. But I guess I also need to know how I can be sure that red line in that aerial in post #501 actually represents where the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm was.

As far as the dimensions of the Eaton property on the 1913 PRR plat map, I explained not just that it's wrong but how it's wrong as well as how it probably got to be wrong. Did you understand that?

[TEPaul]

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


David Moriarty:

Could you show me where you found that quote? I want to see if that's exactly what I said he said.

[DMoriarty]

Given that we both agree the November 15th 1910 Land Plan is not an accurate document, even though probably for differing reasons, do you think we should throw it out as evidence?

In other words, by definition its clear inaccuracy makes drawing any relevant conclusions from it very suspect, wouldn't you agree?

The 1910 Plan is not exact, the location of the road is approximate, and scale may be off.  But that doesn't mean that the plan has absolutely no value.  In Nov. 1910 MCC's board provided the map to the members to show where their golf course was to be be located, and so it gives us a general idea of the same.  In other words, it gives us a general idea of the location of the land upon which they were planning to lay out the course.  And at this point they appear to have been planning on using some of the land west of the college for the course.  Not only that, but they also appear to have been planning on giving up a substantial part of the Johnson farm to the west of the course.  I know this not only because of the map, but also because at this time they were only buying 117 acres.     

So no, I don't think it makes any sense at to throw out the entire plan just because it is not perfectly accurate.  I don't think it was ever meant to be perfectly accurate, and we can still learn a lot from it (and what else we know) even though it is not exact.   Don't get me wrong,  I am not saying that it is an absolute and undisputable fact that at that point they were planning on using land west of the College.  But I am saying that in my mind the 1910 plan and other factors indicate to me that they were, and so far as I know there is nothing I know about that calls this into question.   You can take it or leave it, accept it or don't.

It is not a hard fact that they were using the land, but it is a hard fact that the drawing includes land west of the College as part of the golf course.   

__________________________

TEPaul,  in post 501 I noted that the red area was not intended to be exact.  The west border is meant to trace the Johnson farm border up to the southern border of the golf course, extended.   But my point was illustrative, so I woudn't get too carried away measuring my red box.    My point remains whether or not I have placed the box perfectly. (Sort of like the 1910 Plan.)

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


David Moriarty:

Could you show me where you found that quote? I want to see if that's exactly what I said he said.

The quote was from one of your posts, Tom.

[TEPaul]

"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."


Yes, Cuyler's did recommend that HDC take title to the Johnson Farm and Dallas estate (140 acres + 21 acres=161acres) in Lloyd's (and wife's) name. Why do you suppose Cuyler's recommended that? First, the Johnson Farm at that time was not in HDC's name but Cuyler's was specific about why title to 161 acres should be taken in Lloyd's name.   



"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."

The man's name who Lloyd transfered title to 120.1 acres to was Rothwell not Freeman. Rothwell did not transfer the title to MCC, he transfered title to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation that Lloyd was the president of and Clymer Brooke was the secretary. I have no idea what Lloyd did with the remaining 40 acres that were not transfered to MCCGA Corp.


"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."

That's your opinion and not necessarily mine. 
 

"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."

It refers to the property that was transfered into Lloyd's name on Dec. 19, 1910. He gave the reason to MCC president Evans in a letter dated Dec. 21, 1910. Obviously, it had already been done.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()