[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

If he has support for that I'll eat my hat.

There was a LOT of wild misinterpreted stuff bandied about early on.

[JESII]

I'd be curious what words were misinterpreted to leave Tom with the impression Merion was looking at the Dallas Estate that early...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

To be fair to DM, all he was responding to on your post was your rant about who knew what when and who said what. As a result, he posted the posts that proved that at one time he did know that Freeman was a broker and that TePaul said MCC documents suggest MCC was looking at the Dallas Estate early.  

So, he did provide facts, but only facts on the wild speculations, and not on the timeline.

Oddly, TePaul having a document saying that MCC was looking at the Dallas Estate in June would seem to have TePaul agreeing with him that the land parcels involved in the final Merion East Golf Course were very likely to have been part and parcel of discussions with Whigham and/or CBM.  IF they were considering the Dallas Estate in June 1910, it is logical (everywhere but the Philly division of gca.com) to presume they would have shown them maps saying "what about this parcel over here" rather than saying "Here is the land we got offered by HDC, so please look at that only."

I am with Jim Sullivan on this one.  TePaul provides a post on May 9, 2009, while looking at one of the 1400 pieces of Merion correspondance he has on his computer and interprets it as MCC was looking at the Dallas Estate in June 1910.  That would be as close to a fact based factoid as this thread has seen, and was not a response to anyone else.  Of course, it is TePaul writing, and he may have inadvertantly added the words "June" to "throughout the fall of 1910" and it is clear that he is speculating that the references are to the Dallas Estate.  Perhaps they were being silent about other pieces of property, but on that particular day, TePaul didn't think so.

I can see DM's frustration at trying to piece together anything without the full documentation.  Of course, as I have said before, I don't think he has any right to those documents, just because he wants them, either.

[DMoriarty]

Sorry David...coupling your earlier speculation about Freeman with Toms unsubstantiated speculation about an early Dallas sighting still adds up to zero evidence.

Where are your facts?

My facts are at Merion Cricket Club.  TEPaul has access to them and he tries to selectively use them to refute my various positions, without offering them up for VERIFICATION.  You have no trouble relying on this UNVERIFIED INFORMATION when it suits you.   

But unfortunately for TEPaul and fortunately for the rest of us TEPaul has  not only been unsuccessful at manipulating the facts in such a manner so as to defeat my theories , but also he usually details slip out details that he doesn't fully understand.  Not surprisingly it is usually only the inadvertent slips that have been proven accurate.  I'll take information where I can get it.   My assumption is that TEPaul has a document that indicates that Merion and/or HDC were clandestinely trying to acquire the Dallas Estate from mid - June on.  That is what TEPaul let slip.  Surely we cannot change that now just because it no longer suits his purposes.

There would have been no reason to be clandestine about the other land, because HDC already owned it or had it under option.   

[Mike_Cirba]

This is kind of funny guys, you have to admit.

Now we're speculating about what Tom Paul was speculating about. 

I guess he's gone to Hawaii so we won't have the answer to that anytime real soon, although I have to admit that I'm picturing him going into complete GCA withdrawals by Day 3, and finding a little Internet cafe just a bit inland, where with Hawaiian shirt, shades, Prairie Dunes cap, cigarette holder, and some lubricants with little umbrellas, he will be back here with the fervor of Hunter S. Thompson on 500 grams of methamphetamine! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

It would be funny, except that we have pissed of TePaul, pissed off David Moriarity, they have pissed off each other, they have pissed ON each other, etc. etc. etc.

I know I am the one who inadvertantly extended this thread with a seemingly simple question - how did the Dallas Estate get converted to golf, versus being left out of the project, put into real estate, etc.

I still believe that the principals involved here are too strongly invested in being right.  DM actually seemed to soften a bit - offering that he didn't need to see CBM get design credit in the modern sense - but then we all went right back to a cat fight and sort of ignored that. I would have thought that might have opened the floodgates to some more reasonable discussion.  I still say that the point of this discussion shouldn't be who gets credit.

It should be what exactly happened, as near as we can tell.  If we can't tell for sure, then maybe we should say it appears slightly more likely that.......at some point, a history has to be published, whereas in the discussion forum world, it can go on forever.  Ask DM!  He knows that at some point you put it out there and let everyone take pot shots at it.

My point is, at some point in the very near future, I propose that this all be codified as a revision to MCC history (with an asterisk since its not official) and placed in the In Our Opinion Section with an explanation, and then never spoken of again on these pages!

[Mike_Cirba]

Yeah, Jeff...nice going!

And yes, I suppose that David did offer that seeming concession, and I'm sure he can live with anyone in the world, ever, except Hugh Wilson being the final answer.   

Hell, he's even got Francis and Lloyd flying solo out there, even though Francis said he was "added" to Hugh Wilson's committee! 

I say we cut the bluster and reinterpretation of words and all of the other crap and focus on two areas;

1) Bryan...what say ye Metes and Bounds?

2) Anything further we can learn about the Dallas Estate purchase.


The rest should be self-explanatory if we even get one of those two answers, agreed?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, its not up to me, but I think you are the right track.  Then we all sing Kumbayah, my Lord (and please, don't anyone correct my spelling!)

And, if its not self explanatory, then maybe whatever goes up as a joint response to DM on the opinion section, maybe all the participants, including David, can just write a little "Merion Memories - the discussion group experience" piece and pithily summarize to what percent they agree with the piece.

As of this writing, I will say 54% in favor of the MCC designing the course.....no wait, 47.3402354% in favor of David....no wait, oh never mind.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I'll bring my folk guitar. 

It should be pretty easy for us all to sing along to a song with so few high notes. 

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm sorry...I find that other thread awfully distasteful.

Hope you guys don't mind me picking up the discussion back over here?

For the 2005 US Amateur program, author Gary Galyean in the lead story titled "Merion Golf Club - The Creation of a Legacy" wrote;

"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association.   Joining Mr. Griscom in that organization's endeavors were Charles Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson, and Wilson's younger brother Hugh."


Does anyone know the source of that information?   Was that info also in the Tolhurst book? 

Tom Paul wrote earlier that based on the minutes, there was really no mention of the creation of a "Construction Committee", and speculated whether this was either an ad hoc committee, or perhaps a standing committee.

I'm finding myself wondering if the focus on the minutes to date have been on the period 1910-12 or so, and perhaps something happened earlier?   

Also class...today's homework assignment...

Knowing what we all know now about the sequence of the land purchases, etc., what do you now think of this November 15, 1910 Land Plan, which is one of the only pieces of physical evidence we have.




How confident are we in what it represents?

While it was shown to be not to scale, does anyone recall what it measured to in terms of acreage?   Can anyone tell us?

Remember, this is supposed to represent the exact land purchase in a bid to the membership, after the land for the course had been "secured"...it would later be bought outright December 19, 1910 by HG Lloyd and transferred to MCC in July 1911.

So, what do you think this shows us?   Anyone....? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

It was drawn one week after the deal to include the Dallas Estate was finalized and was prepared specifically to show the members voting on the project what they were buying.  The records show that the committtee/board thought MCC had to take action fairly quickly to take advantage of this offer.  I think it shows as closely as possible what they knew as of the date of the drawing. I think it shows they didn't know the exact boundary of Golf House Road.

It was to scale. I just think that measuring off a photograph of a plan, taken at a slightly oblique angle, is not possible to measure accurately, but it does have a scale bar at the bottom.  But, what we don't know is how accurately the plan reflects the orignal 117 acres MCC planned to buy or the 120 they ended up buying from HDC.  As a CONCEPT PLAN, it may not have been thought necessary to have to scale out exactly as to the metes and bounds for a general depiction of their plan to buy acreage, especially since it was not set.

I tried to write all of that on as much of a fact based tone as possible. Now, here is one fact no one will deny -
That drawing caused a lot of controversy from 2004-2009 and possibly beyond!

Am I safe in throwing that one out there?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

It was drawn one week after the deal to include the Dallas Estate was finalized and was prepared specifically to show the members voting on the project what they were buying.  The records show that the committtee/board thought MCC had to take action fairly quickly to take advantage of this offer.  I think it shows as closely as possible what they knew as of the date of the drawing. I think it shows they didn't know the exact boundary of Golf House Road.

It was to scale. I just think that measuring off a photograph of a plan, taken at a slightly oblique angle, is not possible to measure accurately, but it does have a scale bar at the bottom.  But, what we don't know is how accurately the plan reflects the orignal 117 acres MCC planned to buy or the 120 they ended up buying from HDC.  As a CONCEPT PLAN, it may not have been thought necessary to have to scale out exactly as to the metes and bounds for a general depiction of their plan to buy acreage, especially since it was not set.

I tried to write all of that on as much of a fact based tone as possible. Now, here is one fact no one will deny -
That drawing caused a lot of controversy from 2004-2009 and possibly beyond!

Am I safe in throwing that one out there?

Jeff,

I like the fact-based tone.  I'm trying to keep to one myself as much as possible these days, although I'm sure I've jumped the rails a time or two. 

And, I think the facts you've laid out are all indeed factual based on the rest of the facts we know.

But how about observation of the drawing itself?

While supposedly not to scale (although a scale was drawn on it), do we think it is drawn as just a wildly gross representation or to be as accurate a representation as possible?

What about the dimensions of what has been drawn?   Do we think that a good-faith effort was made to actually represent those pieces that are delineated for the golf course and for the real estate section?

We can see the Dallas Estate is part of what is represented, and you mentioned that the exact dimensions of the road don't seem settled yet.

I'd also add that the Railroad property 3 acres is not included in what has been proposed for purchase on this drawing.

What else can we see dimensionally based on what we know to date about the property diimensions and purchases?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I don't have time today, but later this week I might be able to put into the CAD and see what the acreage approximately scales out to be. Given the source, I doubt it would be exact and if it comes out as 118.5 Acres (splitting the difference between 117 and 120) it will solve nothing.  If it comes out near one of those two acreages, it would be possible to presume that it was either before or after the Francis land swap was finalized, at least I think.

Can you post some of Bryan's known dimensions (as opposed to my known dementia for attempting this......) so I can try to scale up the photo in CAD?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Given that the color photo of the Land Plan is at an angle, I've taken one from David's original essay that seems to be more flush and blown it up a bit.

I think this might be a bit better for getting a sense of the scale of the drawing.

I'm seeing the base of the triangle from the inside edge of the approximate road to be less than 100 yards.  Would you agree?




Also, my other question about what we visually see on the Land Plan is not as complicated as Total Acreage, although I would certainly be interested to see what number that comes out to be, but the question I'm asking right now is something more fundamental.

In other words, it's something easily observable just from looking at the drawing.

[Tony_Chapman]

If this question has been talked about I apologize in advance. But, the "plan" proposed to the members that you posted, Mike, show Merion attempting to acquire some land all the way up to College Ave. Clearly, today, they don't have golf course all the way up to that spot. I appears today that you can make a fairly decent assumption that the range covers the old Haverford College property and the four houses between the tracks and Golf House Rd. on College make up the McFadden property.

I guess my question is as follows: Can we assume that the Golf House Road in the drawing was moved a bit to the right (since we know it didn't exist at the time)? Or, said a different way, if you drew an imaginary property line that extended out from the McFadden Property over to the "proposed" road you've clearly got some "green" that was never used. Was this "unused" property part of the Francis Land Swap?

I hope that made sense.....

[JESII]

Mike,

There are many places this conversation can go but if you insist on focussing on the dimensions derived from an "Approximate" border on a picture taken at an angle you'll not have many people along for the ride, I suspect...


As to your 1909 question...I think there must be something there but I don't know (for a fact...) what exactly.

I would offer that the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association was the brainchild of the Site Committee (Cuylers / Lloyd in 1910) according to Tom and that the Site Committee was named in 1909.

About the 1910 Land Plan...I think I've said for a while now that I do not believe this particular group of guys, and this particular transaction, would select a 117 acre property, with a road and a quarry as obstacles, without having a very good idea of how and where the holes were going to go.


I have a question...before (or after...) we dismiss out of hand the hole length and total length recommendations CBM made in June 1910, what were the original hole lengths at Merion?  His "template" is met with the par 3's (130 = #13, 160 = #9, 190 = #3/6, 220 = #17), and the general concept of 5 or 6 two shotters in the short range (1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and then 12 or 15 depending on the original length of each) and 5 mid length holes (5, 6, 12 or 15, 14, 16, 18). Not impossible is all I am saying...and no I do not have any facts to prove without a doubt that CBM told them where to put each of them...

[John_Cullum]

Mike

I won't tell you my opinion of what that drawing represents, but I will tell you what it is not. It is not a survey from which a property description for a deed will be drafted.

I will reiterate that I see all of these exercises about guestimating acreage and timing of land swaps to be a total waste of time. Merion's land was acquired by deeds. They are recorded in a courthouse, and each deed describes the exact property acquired and has a date on it. I fully expect each deed also refers to some matter of survey that is also of public record.

If you want to know when Merion (or anybody else) acquired a piece of real property, just go look. It is all right there for you

[Mike Hendren]

Mike

I won't tell you my opinion of what that drawing represents, but I will tell you what it is not. It is not a survey from which a property description for a deed will be drafted.

I will reiterate that I see all of these exercises about guestimating acreage and timing of land swaps to be a total waste of time. Merion's land was acquired by deeds. They are recorded in a courthouse, and each deed describes the exact property acquired and has a date on it. I fully expect each deed also refers to some matter of survey that is also of public record.

If you want to know when Merion (or anybody else) acquired a piece of real property, just go look. It is all right there for you

Sarge,

FINALLY, some Southern sensibility to help these poor Yankebillies.   I sent Mike Sweeney an IM some time ago basically saying the same thing.  Perhaps the rest of us should offer to pay for the title search in consideration for this thread meeting its belated demise.

I cannot fathom that well-heeled, moneyed Philadelphians would not have the common sense to hire a good attorney or at least make sure they got a deed with a legal description that "closes" and is confirmed by survey.  Then again, Yankees can be so stupid.

Bogey

[Tom Huckaby]

As a Yankee (if one can call a Californian that) with great admiration and affiliation to South (beaten into me by my in-laws) I have to say... thanks, John, and thanks, Mike.  I have read too much of this thread and all its corollary threads and predecessors and all they do is make my head hurt.  I read your words and I find myself understanding.

Put me down for my share for the title search, whatever that share may be.

 

[JESII]

Obviously you Southern boys just aren't keeping up...when Lloyd bought 161 acres in December 1910, or HDC bought 340 acres earlier in 1910, it was the interior of those boundaries that moved to create the Swap so, while people are working on the actual deeds to decipher what moved and when this novel idea may not quite solve the riddle...

[Mike Hendren]

Jim, I'm guilty of waiting on the Cliff Notes.

If these marvelous dueling researchers can't figure out what was conveyed I'd suggest somebody's heirs claim ownership of two holes of Merion Golf Club, file an interpleader and get an injunction against play over those two holes.  I'm guessing a short term land lease might be lucrative given the imminent Walker Cup.  Perhaps a newspaper article in Philadelphia's finest would flush them out.  Where's investigative journalism when you need it.  Us Hillbillies sure do like to see rich folk squirm.

Bogey

Just in case anyone wonders, I am indeed trying to derail this thread.  Anybody who loves GCA (and hasn't has the good fortune of playing Merion) should do the same.

[JESII]

Speaking of squirming...the thought of Tom Paul on a beach in Hawaii is disconcerting...I wonder if he actually meant he was going over to park his butt right in that quarry on #16 for a few days to see if he could hear what actually happened 'round there...

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm sorry, but there are still a few of us here who are trying to discuss this without rancor.

I think guys who are still keeping up and not just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing like Jim Sullivan, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer, and some others really deserve the ability to try to take this to wherever the facts lead, even if the final results are inconclusive.

So, with that said, I'm not sure why anyone thinks we need to be saved from ourselves, or that GCA and/or Merion somehow needs to be saved by some heroes coming from the south wearing white hats! 

I think some of us who are here mostly for items of historical golf course architectural interest have to sit through a hell of a lot of NCAA basketball, Tiger Woods, Michelle Wie, howzabout those new equipment, and a lot of other stuff that has zippo to do with golf course architecture at every level, not to mention how those OT threads quickly push relevant threads into oblivion (off the first page), so I'd kindly request;

1) If you are truly interested in this subject, please read away and participate if you wish

2) If not, there are plenty of other threads here to participate in.

Thanks.

[Mike Hendren]

You're welcome. 

44 pages.
16,000 views.
6 of 1500 members participating.

Good luck.

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...back to discussion.

John Cullum,

Jim is correct.   The deeds all exist but what doesn't exist, or hasn't been found yet, is the actual working topographcal map that the Committee used.    Since the swap likely happened "within" a larger property that had only been "approximately" divided with a "working boundary" at that time, I'm not yet sure what the metes and bounds comparison is going to be able to tell us.

Bryan Izatt,

Any updates you would like to share with us in terms of what you're seeing now that it sounds like you have all of the information you need to do that cross-compare?

Jeff/Others,

I'll quit being so vague about my question about the 1910 Land Plan.

What I'm really trying to point out is that the area indicated as deliniated for the proposed golf course runs all the way north to College Avenue as of November 15, 1910, when that map survey was drawn.

Isn't that a huge discrepancy for something trying to accurately represent the areas in question?

Does the fact that the golf course is shown as extending all the way to College Avenue and the "approximate road" is simply equidistant and curvilinear lead you to believe that the Francis Land Swap happened prior to then, or after then?

It seems very likely that the map was drawn sometime in early November, after the purchase of the Dallas Estate, as Jeffrey mentioned.  

Why would that northern boundary still not be settled if the Francis Land Swap was complete at that time, and we know that the drawing was supposed to represent the exact 117 acres of the golf course purchase?

It isn't close either.

We've already seen that the width at the bottom of that triangle is less than 100 yards, while today the width in that area is 130 yards.

We've also seen that the length of that triangle today is 190 yards, yet that map shows the golf course going north almost another 400 feet, or a short par three beyond the golf course as built.  

I guess the fundamental question is very simple;   Why does the golf course extend to College Avenue in the first place?

The following two illustrations indicate the progression of what I think happened.  

What does everyone think?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()