Merion's Early Timeline

[Patrick_Mucci]

This thread has been most informative, AND, it can continue to be informative IF the parties involved will present their evidence without including personal insults, snipes and snide comments.

I like both David Moriarty and TEPaul, however, the record shows that I've had my differences with both.
Just because we have our differences and become passionate in our advocacy or defense of our position, doesn't mean that we have to revert to engaging in personal attacks that become ongoing vendettas.

David Moriarty & Tom Paul,

Please put aside your personal feelings about each other and confine your comments to the issue/s at hand.

I don't know where the due diligence process will lead, but, I'd like to continue on the journey.

Mike Cirba,

What's annoying about this thread, besides the obvious, is the lack of continuity.
Bryan and David are trying to reconstruct the land acquisitions and suddenly, some of the opponents of David's premise disrupt that process and latch on to parsing the meaning of the word/s "lay out".

Please stop trying to deflect and divert the attention from the issue/s at hand.

Let's complete one phase of the discovery process without interuption, without attempting to divert or subvert, before we go on to the next.

And, please STOP with your constant conjecturing, it's disruptive, it impedes the discovery process, a process you obviously don't want to continue.
You initiated this thread, intending to prove your position, yet, when the thread took a turn away from your position, supported by facts and sound reasoning, you jump at the slightest opportunity and ask Ran to delete it.  I agree that the thread took a turn for the worse, but, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Even TEPaul wants this thread preserved, and, so do I.
Too much hard work and research has gone into this thread.
Valuable information has been revealed that shouldn't be lost.
Let the process continue, without trying to derail it.
We know how you and Dan feel, but every post you make seems to be an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the discovery process.

As to not being able to edit posts, I disagree with eliminating that function.
On numerous occassions I've mis-typed or mis-stated a point and the editing feature lets me correct the error such that readers aren't confused by the mistake.  In addition, it allows one to add more information to the post or to delete an error.

It's NOT the editing function that needs adjustment, it's the tone and content of the personal attacks.  They need to cease.

So, let the discussion continue.

TEPaul,

Would you please provide Bryan with the Metes and Bounds he's requested.

Their publication by you shouldn't be conditional on what his intended use is, nor should he have to tell you why he wants the information in your possession.

Failure to release that information makes it appear that you know that that information may harm your position, and worse, it makes it appear that you may have other information that you haven't released that supports David's position.

I'm sorry that you and David are at sword's point.
I like both of you.  I consider you a friend.

Unlike others, who shall go nameless, I'm not about to disolve my friendship with you over this thread or any thread, or on your position on Merion or any other subject.

David & Tom,

Please, bury the hatchet and focus on the facts and reasoned arguments.
I know we'll never know all of the facts, and that we'll never agree on everything, but, perhaps we can discover more facts and piece together a reasonable treatise that we all can agree on, irrespective of the result.

End of advice.

[TEPaul]

"A quick question on the narrow strip up by College.  Who owns the roads in PA: the municipality? the county? the State? or the private land owners?  Who would have owned Golf House Road when it was built?  Is it possible that the strip was for private access?  Or an easement for power, gas, telephone?"


Bryan:

A road in Pennsylvania can be owned by any of the above you listed. In the case of Golf House Road it was built at the expense of HDC (the residential development road cost was actually mentioned in Lloyd's letter to the MCC membership) and dedicated to the municipality (in this case to the township). The basic reason for a road dedication is to pass on road upkeep costs and such things as snow removal etc. Golf House Road itself is app seven yards wide (technically 11 feet from center to both sides).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

You know and Mike Cirba knows that newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate, yet, Mike never ceases presenting them when they support his position.

Can you return to your pursuit of the land issues ?

Will TEPaul please supply you with the Metes and Bounds which you have requested.

I'd just like to add one thought.

Many developers, of golf courses, buildings and theme parks, know pretty much, if not EXACTLY where everything will go IF they can get the land.   The land is a known commodity, as is what the land can accomodate. 
The critical question often is, can the land be obtained from the current owners ?

So the notion that a golf course was layed out on a parcel of land, prior to the complete acquisition of that land, is not an outlandish idea, thought or practice.

[TEPaul]

By the way, I just went to Media and the Delaware Co. Recorder of Deeds and got Lloyd's Dec. 19, 1910 deed taking 161 acres into his own name. If you want to square off that rectanglular block with the Haverford College land that rectangular block going up to College Ave. on the old Johnson farm at the top of the "L" would measure to 12.77 acres.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Cirba,

Well then, I will stop dropping in every 4th day or so.  I would do so more, but it takes that long for me to recover from the body blows, dust myself off and get back in the ring!

I have an idea - If they ever start the "Revisionist History Channel" lets propose that Merion CC be its first subject!

[TEPaul]

"Before this thread expires, I must reiterate what I said many years before, and has only been confirmed with subsequent random readings of golf course development in the 1890-1920 period, that to "lay out" a course almost certanly meant to "design" it, per todays common parlance.  To the extent that this seemingly endless "argument" rests on other interpretations of the phrase "lay out," I am satsified that it is a non-argument, just a tale told with sound and fury, signifying nothing......"

Rich:

I agree with you; it is a non-argument. In the case of Merion we certainly do know that Wilson's report mentioned laying out on the ground and clearly on paper too. This report explained what they had been doing throughout the winter and spring 1911 and we certainly know this was all before they actually BUILT anything on the ground. We also know the layout of one of their last five plans was submitted to the Board of Directors on 4/19/1911 for their approval as a plan on paper (probably one of their topographical survey maps) as the meeting minutes mentioned "plan attached herewith."

[Ulrich Mayring]

Heavens forbid that anyone should discuss a friggin golf course on this site!

Well, if that was only happening!

How can we put an end to this abuse? Is there enough goodwill out there for a somehow "magical" improvement?

Do we have to find some documents that undisputably prove that Merion was designed by Melvin Cowznofski and Charles Blair Macdonald was actually a pen name for Joe Bunker, wo was the real designer of NGLA? Is that what it would take to get these guys together and shake hands (and heads in disbelief)?

Ulrich

[Bryan Izatt]

"A quick question on the narrow strip up by College.  Who owns the roads in PA: the municipality? the county? the State? or the private land owners?  Who would have owned Golf House Road when it was built?  Is it possible that the strip was for private access?  Or an easement for power, gas, telephone?"


Bryan:

A road in Pennsylvania can be owned by any of the above you listed. In the case of Golf House Road it was built at the expense of HDC (the residential development road cost was actually mentioned in Lloyd's letter to the MCC membership) and dedicated to the municipality (in this case to the township). The basic reason for a road dedication is to pass on road upkeep costs and such things as snow removal etc. Golf House Road itself is app seven yards wide (technically 11 feet from center to both sides).

Does "dedicated" mean the land for the road is legally deeded to the Township?  Or is it only an agreement for access and maintenance by the Township while the land boundaries continue to run down the middle of the road in a deeded sense?

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

You know and Mike Cirba knows that newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate, yet, Mike never ceases presenting them when they support his position.

Can you return to your pursuit of the land issues ?

Will TEPaul please supply you with the Metes and Bounds which you have requested.

I'd just like to add one thought.

Many developers, of golf courses, buildings and theme parks, know pretty much, if not EXACTLY where everything will go IF they can get the land.   The land is a known commodity, as is what the land can accomodate. 
The critical question often is, can the land be obtained from the current owners ?

So the notion that a golf course was layed out on a parcel of land, prior to the complete acquisition of that land, is not an outlandish idea, thought or practice.

Patrick,

When did you become such a voice for moderation and reason.     It looks good on you. 

Vis-a-vis the metes and bounds, I'd be happy to receive them, but I will not ask again, nor, certainly, will I beg. Tom appears to want to work in acres based on his latest post, so I guess I could reverse-engineer the west boundary of the Johnson farm, but it makes so much more sense to just use the metes.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I think you're mistaken.

That drawing of 16 is not meant to be to scale and every single drawing has the routes dotted-lined from the front of the tee.  I'm not suggesting it's to scale, just approximate.

Who even knows how big or long any of the original tees were?   Does anyone recall mention of multiple tees?  I don't.  I don't know how long the original tee was.  The diagram shows it as squarish in shape, but it's just representative. Do you suppose that when Wilson et al designed/layed out that tee they decided to build a 95 yard long airstrip tee right out of the box.  Wouldn't  that have been novel for the times? Seems more likely to me that the tee was extended backward as Merion tried to keep up with technology advances.

Another random thought, since we seem to be into them this afternoon, it occurs to me that the nice big curvilinear bow that you think was whimsically placed on the lower half of Golf House Road does serve one practical land development purpose.  It maximizes the estate lot golf course frontages compared to a straight road.  So, perhaps it wasn't whimsical at all, just good real estate business.  Perhaps the real estate, and not the golf course, drove the process.  Just pure speculation on my part.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

While we're talking pet peeves, you know what's even more annoying?

Guys like you and Shivas who drop in about every 4th day or so, make a bunch of uninformed comments, ask a bunch of questions on ground already covered, and then just debate ridiculous points like road access on a public road running thru the middle of the golf course just to hear yourselves make clever but wholly irrelevant debating points.

Mike,

I think the questions have been legitimate.
Many of those questions remain unanswered.

While I can't speak for Shivas, I doubt he drops in every 4th day or so.  I know I don't.
I may post every 4th day or so, but, I try to stay tuned in to this often convoluted and complex thread.

Neither Shivas nor myself have a vested interest in this discussion/debate.  We're independent observers.
The same can't be said of you.  You're an interested party.  You're invested in Wilson, ergo Merion.
Hence your perspective and posting isn't at arm's length, it's with an agenda, a motive, and that is to do anything and everything to refute David's premise, rather than to search for the facts and truth.

At the moment, I don't have the time to plunge into the fray ....... thoroughly.
But, I still know how to read and reason.
And, from what I"ve read and reasoned, the outcome of the debate seems to have been decided before the debate began.
What's disturbing is the fact that David and Bryan seem to have to pull teeth in order to obtain information presently available to other parties in this debate.  It would be more productive if those that possess valuable information would provide same, whether or not they've been requested to do so.


Like I said, I'll wisely heed your advice and drop out of this circle jerk.


Mike, you were the one who created this thread.

You entitled it: " My attempt at the Timeline "

But, the title was a misnomer.
Your thread was a clear attempt to undermine and refute David's premise, NOT an attempt to construct a legitimate timeline.

David Moriarty,

I'd suggest the following.

Concurrently, continue with your discovery process, discussions on this subject on GCA.com and the drafting of Part II of "The Missing Faces of Merion"

More information is known about Merion due to your efforts and your opinion piece.

Light the candle while others continue to curse the darkness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

You know and Mike Cirba knows that newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate, yet, Mike never ceases presenting them when they support his position.

Can you return to your pursuit of the land issues ?

Will TEPaul please supply you with the Metes and Bounds which you have requested.

I'd just like to add one thought.

Many developers, of golf courses, buildings and theme parks, know pretty much, if not EXACTLY where everything will go IF they can get the land.   The land is a known commodity, as is what the land can accomodate. 
The critical question often is, can the land be obtained from the current owners ?

So the notion that a golf course was layed out on a parcel of land, prior to the complete acquisition of that land, is not an outlandish idea, thought or practice.

Patrick,

When did you become such a voice for moderation and reason.     It looks good on you. 

Bryan,

I happen to like all of the parties involved.
I consider Tom Paul to be a friend.
While I revel in passionate, heated debate, being the Devil's Advocate AND stirring the pot, I'm very interested in this thread in that a good deal has been learned about the early beginings of Merion, and, I suspect that more information could be obtained IF the parties involved would co-operate with each other, even though they want different outcomes.

My perspective is: do the due diligence/research and let the chips fall where they may.

Vis-a-vis the metes and bounds, I'd be happy to receive them, but I will not ask again, nor, certainly, will I beg. Tom appears to want to work in acres based on his latest post, so I guess I could reverse-engineer the west boundary of the Johnson farm, but it makes so much more sense to just use the metes.

I don't understand TEPaul's reluctance to provide them.
It leads one to suspect that revelation won't favor his position AND that he's hiding pertinent information on this and other issues, and that's not good ..... for anyone.

I'd like to see the parties obtain as much information as possible and then reason a prudent position with respect to the land acquisition and other related issues.

 

[TEPaul]

I think, at this point, it might be a good idea to put Francis’ whole story on here as told by Desmond Tolhurst in his Merion history books of 1988 and 2005.            


 


An interesting sidelight on the design of the new course comes from Richard Francis, who wrote the following in 1950:
              “Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course.
               “The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion---with a little help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue.
              “I was looking at the map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. (Richard Francis lived next to the Haverford station of the PRR). 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 it for some we could use?
              “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 the 16th tee. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as it is today.”






To me, it’s always good to consider the other parts of it than just his mention of the 130x190 piece of ground that could have been something created or added on to.

I was also speaking to Wayne about Francis’ story in Tolhurst’s history book and it occurred to me when Tolhurst wrote of Francis’ story in his book he was definitely looking right at the actual story if you look at the way he prefaced it and quoted from it. So the question is, what all was Francis’ story? Was it an article, a letter or what? And most importantly did it say more that Tolhurst didn’t include when he quoted from it in his history book? Tolhurst was looking right at something and that was in 1988 so the actual Francis story itself should be in the archives somewhere. Let’s hope there’s more to it and perhaps it actually tells us more we can use on here to analyze this timeline.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I thought that C&C had determined the routing and hole design for Sand Hills on land they hadn't yet acquired, and that they advised Dick Youngscap that he needed to acquire that land in order to complete their ideal golf course.

Am I correct on that issue ?[/b]

[TEPaul]

"Does "dedicated" mean the land for the road is legally deeded to the Township?  Or is it only an agreement for access and maintenance by the Township while the land boundaries continue to run down the middle of the road in a deeded sense?"


Bryan:

I can't completely answer that but my understanding has always been "dedicated" means the owners of land that has roads created on it and then "dedicate" it to a township, county or state etc either turn that land over in the "dedication" or else create for the receiver a form of sort of permanent "easement" that does "run with the land" (survives challenges on real estate transfers).

On the other hand, I do know of a few roads around here that were "dedicated" and for whatever reasons were turned back over by a municipality or whatever to private hands. This almost always happens when landowners along a road like that want to close it for some reason as any kind of public thoroughfare.

And then of course you do realize that once a road is dedicated and public the entity controlling it, usually a government, can widen it and such through "eminent domain."

Through the years it has been recorded by Merion that they were concerned about eminent domain with Ardmore Ave being widened at some point and hurting something like their second hole.

Golf House Road has never been widened and I doubt it ever would be. It is certainly not a highly traveled road.

[JESII]

Golf House Road has never been widened and I doubt it ever would be. It is certainly not a highly traveled road.

...except for these last couple of weeks...

[TEPaul]

To help those on this thread doing various things save some time and effort I would like to explain a few things. If others think I'm wrong on the following please let me know. I think the following items (let's call them "assets") will be useful to us for particularly measurement purposes as well as perhaps even being real indicators of the actual timing of Francis's land swap idea;

Assets not useful for measurement:

1. The Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan:
            It was sent to MCC members in Nov. 1910 and used in the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion." I think we all realize at this point that the "yet to be built" road labeled on that land plan "approximate location of road" is not an accurate representation of the western boundary of the golf course at the top of the "L" and it probably was just illustrative. We do not know how or how much it differed from the delineation of that yet to be built road as it obviously appeared on the Wilson Committee's working topographical survey maps that they used in the winter and spring of 1911 to design their numerous plans on or at least their final plan on. We have never seen one of those working topographical maps from back then but as we speak, we have Yerkes & Co. looking through their records for it. We don't even know if Yerkes did it for MCC but they are and old and really big and popular surveyor around here and they certainly did a lot of work for Merion in later years so we're keeping our fingers crossed that they did the one for the Wilson Committee's topo survey maps they designed on. If we get lucky and they did the Wilson Committee's working topo survey maps back in 1910 or 1911 it should answer all our questions about this land swap once and for all because we really can see exactly how Wilson and Francis and the committee probably felt hemmed in somehow on those last five holes as Francis said.

2. PRR plat maps:
               They are generally pretty good but their use was always for more general information and they don't really represent the metes and bounds exactness that deeds and title transfers must for all kinds of practical and legal reasons. I have found a real dimensional mistake on the 1913 PRR plat map that shows Merion East.



Assets useful for measurement:
                1. The Dec. 19, 1910 161 acre deed in which the land is tranfered to Horatio Gates Lloyd. I just got it today; Merion has never had it in their archives and now they will. The thing that makes this asset valuable to me is it does have the exact dimensions of the old Johnson farm's western boundary at the top of the "L"
                2. The July 21, 1911 deed in which Lloyd passes 120.1 acres of his 161 acre Dec. 21, 1910 deed back to the MCCGA (of which he is the chairman). This deed has the actual metes and bounds of Club House Road on it!!!
                3. A 1920s Yerkes survey of Merion East which also has the metes and bounds of Club House Road on it.




The point of this is even without ever finding one of those working topo survey maps we at least can take the metes and bounds of that known boundary line of the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson farm from College Ave to Ardmore Ave AND the metes and bounds of Golf House Road from College to Ardmore and enclose the whole thing and determine its total acreage from the western line of the road to the old western boundary of the old Johnson farm.

It is my belief that acreage will perfectly show the acreage lost in that enclosed area compared to what it was with the Wilson Committee's topo survey maps and it will show WHERE the "exchange" of "adjoining" land for land ALREADY PURCHASED as well as the addtional 3 acres purchased for $7,500 all of which is reflected in the Thompson Resolution of 4/19/1911 and the July, 21 1911 Lloyd to MCCGA deed 3 acre increase CAME FROM! And logically the way they effectuated all that is through the delineation of Golf House Road.

It should also be mentioned that when the Thompson Resolution mentioned the exchanged with adjoining land that the area delineated by Golf House Road is the only land on the golf course that actual did adjoin with the HDC residential real estate development to the west.

As far as actually measuring any of these dimensions and acreage, I've got to admit I don't understand this Google Earth measuring thing at all or its actual reliability, and I mean no disrespect to someone like Bryan Izatt when I say that. But I think we can offer a whole lot better and more reliability than that. Now that we have Yerkes working on this again (looking for that all important Wilson Committee working topo survey map) and considering that they did most of these surveys 90 to 100 years ago we'll just get them to do the enclosure and the measurements and acreage for us, as long as it isn't too expensive.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, I understand your sentiment and appreciate your effort, but while I'd be glad to have a fact based discussion about Merion, I doubt that will happen here.    Such a conversation is impossible when one side refuses to back up their claims with the facts, and refuses to let the other side fully vet their claims.   Plus, TEPaul has gone so far over any line of common decency on so many occasions, that I am not sure I have the stomach for it.    If one of my friends pulled what he pulled last night I'd smack my friend down myself, and I'd expect the same of my friends.   We aren't doing him any favors by brushing his unconscionable behavior under the rug yet again.   

But even setting that aside, think about how absurd all this is.  We spend hours speculating and trying to decipher a partial record, when TEPaul and Wayne are sitting on the whole record.   They leak out what they think supports their claim or might make me look bad, and they suppress the rest.  Is that your idea of a productive conversation?  It is not mine.   TEPaul has even repeatedly asserted that I need to accept and believe what he tells me about the history of Merion, without question.   From his perspective, no one else questions him, so why should I?   This is obviously a man who lives in a world with which I am not familiar, and one who is not capable of having a productive fact-based conversation.

So I agree that the tone has to change a lot.  In my opinion last night should have been the very last of many last straws, and he should be off the site for good.    If he is allowed to say I will have zero tolerance for any more of his garbage and no one else should either, whether they are his friend or foe.   He is ruining the site.   

But more than just the tone has to change for this to become a productive conversation.   We need full disclosure so we can address and vet their claims.   And we need to be able to question their claims without them resorting to insults and outrageous character assassination.    No one should have to go through what they put people through simply to have a conversation about a golf course. 

[Mike_Cirba]

How many acres does the golf course at NGLA occupy today?

I ask because it seems that NGLA had very much the same origins as Merion, where more acres than needed for the golf course were purchased originally, with some percentage of the land going to "subscribers", or early investors in the venture.

In the case of NGLA, of the 200 acres purchased, CB Macdonald set down an arbitrary figure of 110 acres as necessary for the golf course, and the other 90 acres were going to go for sale in plots of an acre and a half, with the idea that their value would increase markedly over time with an adjacent golf course of this quality.

At the time of this plan and land purchase, there was NO golf course designed yet.

In fact, a Holding Company had just been formed, with Macdonald as President, with James Stillman, Robert Watson, Dev Emmett, and Daniel Chauncey.   "The Holding had not been definitely settled, as the owners of the property had allowed the golfers the privilege of determining later the exact boundaries of their purchase."

In fact, "a Committee to Lay Out the course had also just been appointed, as follows;  C.B. Macdonald, Walter J. Travis, H.J. Whigham, and Devereux Emmett.   This committee has been granted three months to stake out the course."

Sound familiar?

Perhaps Patrick can determine if there is any "conjecture" in this post and strike any portions that aren't 100% factual?   

[Mike_Cirba]

Are you telling us that the necessity of a 120 yard minimum carry has been determined to be too much for a majority of Merion members here before?  If so, where?

Finally, are you telling us that the members at Merion had some magical ability to get Herculeanly longer somewhere between the 16th fairway and 17th tee, such that a 120 yard shot over the quarry was beyond most of their abilities on 16, but a shot significantly longer over the very same quarry somehow became a piece of cake for them on the very next tee?  If so, where? 

Shivas,

C'mon, your smarter than that.

Merion's 16th has always been a 400+ yard hole, and probably was around 420 or so on a straight line when originally opened, even if the yardage was 433 listed in the 1916 US Amateur program.

Your 120 carry number is silly, because that assumes that players have hit a 300 yard drive with hickory shafts and gutta percha balls.

Probably most members drove on average around 220 or so.

That left a daunting full-carry attempt at carrying ALL of the quarry on their second, or...THANKS to the MAGIC OF STRATEGIC GOLF DESIGN, someone thoughtfully decided TO CREATE A FAIRWAY AROUND THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE QUARRY, which made it three-shot hole, but which also required much more WIDTH than someone likely anticipated for the hole at first.

The next hole, a par three from a cliff-top tee to a green well down below required about 170 yards of carry from the tee to reach reasonably maintained areas, but even there, they weren't going to lose a ball unless they duffed it off the tee.

Have you ever been to Merion Shivas, and seen the holes you're commenting on in this thread?

I ask because I don't think you would have posted what you just did had you seen those holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How many acres does the golf course at NGLA occupy today?

Irrelevant

I ask because it seems that NGLA had very much the same origins as Merion, where more acres than needed for the golf course were purchased originally, with some percentage of the land going to "subscribers", or early investors in the venture.

In the case of NGLA, of the 200 acres purchased, CB Macdonald set down an arbitrary figure of 110 acres as necessary for the golf course, and the other 90 acres were going to go for sale in plots of an acre and a half, with the idea that their value would increase markedly over time with an adjacent golf course of this quality.

At the time of this plan and land purchase, there was NO golf course designed yet.

That's absolutely UNTRUE.

You have to STOP inserting your own views and trying to pass them off as facts.

In fact, a Holding Company had just been formed, with Macdonald as President, with James Stillman, Robert Watson, Dev Emmett, and Daniel Chauncey.   "The Holding had not been definitely settled, as the owners of the property had allowed the golfers the privilege of determining later the exact boundaries of their purchase."

In fact, "a Committee to Lay Out the course had also just been appointed, as follows;  C.B. Macdonald, Walter J. Travis, H.J. Whigham, and Devereux Emmett.   This committee has been granted three months to stake out the course."

Sound familiar?

Perhaps Patrick can determine if there is any "conjecture" in this post and strike any portions that aren't 100% factual?   

I already did.

Mike, when are you going to stay on topic and cease trying to divert the focus by introducing irrelevant tidbits ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh Patrick...you'd be quite incorrect about that.

Macdonald first bought the land, then created a plan for a large real estate component mixed with a golf course, and then laid out (designed) the golf course.

Patrick,

Please do not help spread this sudden surge in Internet traffic between the west coast and midwest to northern New Jersey.   

My lord, we don't want to bring down the entire east coast grid!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David & TEPaul,

I have a suggestion.

Would you please draft a chronological graph that represents the acquisition of land for the Merion East Golf course.

That would allow many of those who are interested in this topic to see how the land was assembled.
If there's a disagreement on an acquistion we could add an asteric with a footnote and pursue that issue seperately.

Let's divide and conquer and deal with one issue at a time.

Once we get agreement on an issue, we can move on to the next, and as such, use the building block approach to structuring an accurate or prudent understanding of the transactional time line.

David,

I'd agree that it appears that information is being revealed on a selective basis, and that isn't appropriate.

I don't understand WHY TEPaul won't answer Bryan Izatt's request for the Metes and Bounds.

TEPaul,

Why do you continue to ignore Bryan's numerous requests ?

And, Who is the "we" you refer to in your reply dated: Today, 6:14:05 ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm all for Tom Paul, and David, and Bryan doing that as well.

But while they're getting their act together, should I continue about NGLA?

"It is therefore proposed to give each subscriber an acre and a half in fee simple.  The ground itself would probably be worth about $500 an acre in the vicinity of a golf course of this character."

 

[DMoriarty]

Not sure where you get your information Mike, or how you interpret it, but that doesn't sound much like NGLA to me.  At least not with the spin you put on it.    

Here is what CBM said about how the land was purchased at NGLA, on page 158 of Scotland's Gift (emphasis added):

However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile of frontage on Peconic bay and laying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay.  This property was little known and had never been surveyed.  Every one thought it more or less worthless.  It abounded with bogs and swapms and was covered with an entanglement of bayberr, huckeberry, blackberry and other bushes andwas infested by insects.  The only way one could get ofver the gournd was on ponies.  So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.  Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably.  It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.   The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.
        We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . .

According to CBM, they chose the land they wanted for the course out of a much larger parcel. The chose the locations of the holes FIRST, then staked out what they wanted to purchase, based on this plan.  There was nothing arbitrary about the land used for the course or for even for the original 200 acre purchase, for that matter.  

Now that sounds familiar.

I don't know where you got that above, but it surely wasn't from CB Macdonald.  

What, exactly was your source?