Something else I might throw out here that I feel we have probably learned at this point from the discussions on this thread is the actual remark of Francis about that triangle:
"Mr. Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by fine homes along Club House Road was exchanged for land about 130 wide by 190 yards long."
190 yards LONG?? (on that triangle IN GREEN David Moriarty was referring to in his essay as the ENTIRETY of Francis' land swap idea and fix on #15 green and #16 tee)
It seems to me we argued and argued about whether the base (width) of that triangle measured 130 yards or 95 or 100. But because we now have all learned something and we seem to agree that the "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan may not have been an exact and measurable delineation along any point of that yet-to-be-built” road we probably shouldn't be using it as a reference any longer.
However, did David Moriarty believe he should NOT be using that “approximate road delineation” (on the Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan as an exact measurement WHEN he wrote his “The Missing Faces of Merion” essay and put it on here a year ago? Well, we can certainly ask him but I would offer the following as an indication that he did think back then that triangle was a good representation dimensionally (130x190) of that triangle in green on the Nov. 15, 1910 plan! And it of course was most important to his contention about WHEN Francis’ idea and the swap happened that the area in green WAS the ENTIRETY of the triangle that his idea created BEFORE that Nov. 15, 1910 Proposed land plan (BEFORE Nov, 15, 1910).
Here’s what he said about it in his essay.
“As quoted by Tolhurst, Francis wrote that Merion gave up “land west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout;” land which was later “covered by fine homes along Golf House Road.” In exchange, Merion received a small section of “land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long - the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.” No doubt Francis was describing the land between the present practice area and Golf House Road, a small triangle of land that perfectly matches Francis’ description.” (130x190)
He said it “perfectly matches Francis’ description” (130X190)! Did he ever try to measure any of it in any way BEFORE that essay? Apparently not; he may not have even known it was semi-measurable, he probably just assumed it was some kind of triangle of 130x190 (Francis’ description of it
).
But we can all see the top of that triangle very much goes all the way to College Ave IN GREEN and the fact is if one measures that area from two very much known points (from the middle of College Ave down to the southwest corner of the Haverford College land) it comes out to 327 yards!!!
Obviously, in his 1950 story Richard Francis was talking about something other than that triangle IN GREEN on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan or else he surely wasn’t describing the dimensions of it remotely accurately on that Nov. 15, land plan IN HIS 1950 STORY!!
It seems we were perhaps a bit too fixated on the WIDTH of the base of the triangle and not enough considering of the LENGTH of that triangle in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan, don’t you think? The difference between 190 yards and 327 yards is definitely not insignificant!
David Moriarty, when you wrote in your essay what I quoted above from your essay about the dimensions of that triangle in green on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan ‘perfectly matches Francis’ description” (130X190) you had no idea what the width and particularly the LENGTH dimensions of that triangle in green were, did you?
Do you at least admit that now? If not, how can you deny you didn’t know that given what you said quoted above in your essay (that triangle IN GREEN ‘perfectly matches Francis’ description?’