[Mike_Cirba]

Question: If it were proven that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option and the northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College, would the presence of a triangle on the 11/10/1910 Plan prove to you that the Francis Swap occurred prior to November 10, 1910?

Jim,

Yes, if it were proven that the "northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College" prior to November 15, 1910, I would certainly have to agree that the Francis swap happened prior to then, but I've not seen any evidence at all that was the case.

However, if it were only proven "that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option", I would not necessarily agree, but at least one of the news accounts indicates that they were looking at 130 acres out of a total of 350 acres.   Also, under that hypothetical I think the most likely possible scenario is that they first secured 117 in November 1911 and then thought they might need more and optioned another 13, either before or after Lloyd's purchase of the 161.

I also honestly think that some of this newspaper information was purposefully mis-fed to news sources as negotiations were underway.

For instance, the one that mentions that a recent sale in the neighborhood went for $8,000 an acre simply sounds like it's trying to drum up interest and acceptance from Merion while they can still get it at the low, low, LOW price of X per acre.   Joe Bausch sent me the neighborhood real estate transactions from that timeframe and there was nothing of the sort.   Not coincidentally, that was also one of the articles that talked about Merion securing 130 acres for their course.

There is so much misinformation and flat out erroneous information of various sorts in that series of articles that I'd much prefer sticking to what I know is accurate from the club records we've produced.


Is there any proof that either the northern boundary stopped at Haverford College or that Merion ever secured 130 acres?  

[Mike_Cirba]

I asked Tom Paul for permission to post the contents of an email he sent to me regarding Tom MacWood's question, as follows.

Tom also makes clear he does not want to get into another pointless debate with Tom MacWood via proxy, but I told him that I'd post his response and make that clear.


"Is it possible that Wilson's role, and the role of the CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, was to oversee construction and not to design the golf course? The hundreds of P&O letters show Wilson as a man totally focused on the green-keeping aspects of a new golf course - controlling budget, selecting a seed merchant, buying seed, preparing the ground, buying sand, hiring a greenkeeper, etc. There is not a single mention of anything having to do with architecture or design in those letters during the period in question." - Tom MacWood via Phil Young
 
 
 
If that were the case it would render the Wilson report to the board meeting of 4/19/1911 virtually nonsensical and there is no reason at all to assume it was that.  The Wilson report to the board is probably the most significant piece of MCC internal and administrative material ever found concerning what Wilson and his committee did design-wise in the winter and spring of 1911, and analysts of Merion's architectural history should be reminded that it was found after this entire subject came up on Golfclubatlas.   It was found about a year ago in the attic of MCC where it had apparently been unseen and unconsidered for close to a century.  Therefore it had never been considered in these debates about Wilson, Macdonald/Whigam and Barker.  It would be extremely misleading now to fail to consider what it say or to try to rationalize away what they meant when they explained the laying out of numerous courses and five final plans.  What they were explaining they did in the winter and spring of 1911 could not possibly have meant building or constructing architecture as it would be a number of months before that would be done and the club and board at that point had not even selected or approved a course routing and design plan to build as Merion East.
 
I might be one of two or so who has read all the Wilson letters to Piper and Oakley.  Wilson never discussed architecture with Piper and Oakley in the teens because Piper and Oakley had nothing to do with golf course architecture.  They were botanists and agronomists.  About ten years into those correspondences they did begin to discuss architecture with Hugh Wilson but always in the context of economic efficiency (cost).  In the 1920s in correspondences with Alan Wilson who was the Chairman of the USGA Green Committee that was responsible for setting up the USGA Green Section (first Piper then Oakley would become its chairman) Piper did begin to write about excellent golf holes and even suggested he write about architecture but Alan Wilson usually reminded him that his credibility was in agronomy not golf course architecture.
 
Only once in all those "agronomy letters" did Hugh Wilson ever write about architecture.  It was in the first draft of a 1915-16 article he was asked to do about the creation of Merion by Piper.  He wrote it in strictly an agronomy context. However, the fascinating thing about that first draft (it is pretty amazing it was even kept by P&O) is that along about the fifth page he actually began to write about how to create natural looking bunkers but then he realized that was not really about agronomy and so he crossed out the entire medium sized paragraph with a notation next to it that it was about golf course construction (architecture) and not relevant to that particular article.
 
We may never know the exact reasons why Lloyd and Lesley and Evans and Merion turned to Wilson and his committee to design Merion because none of us ever knew those men.  All we know is that they did turn to Wilson and his committee to design Merion East and West.  Merion's records, contemporaneous and otherwise are replete with that information.  If anyone else was responsible for the design and architecture of Merion East to some significant degree back in 1910 and 1911 there is no reason at all to assume that Merion would not have recorded that if it were true.
 
Apparently there are still some on Golfclubatlas who want to ply a line of reasoning that someone other than Wilson and his committee designed Merion East by constantly asking "Is it possible?" or "Is it not impossible?" (that someone other than Wilson and his committee designed Merion East).  Merion Golf Club and its historians are well aware of this continued effort on the part of a few on here and they all feel, at this point, it completely lacks even a modicum of credibility or historic accuracy given Merion's own internal and administrative records (some newspaper accounts being distinctly at odds with Merion's own administrative records).

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

My larger point, however is that the source documents for those articles was the Merion correspondence of November 15, 1910 that included;

1) The July 1 Site Committee report
2) The Nov 15 Bond Solicitation to Membership
3) The Land Plan

The reason I'm asking how they could simultaneously say Merion had both option on the extra 13 acres while holding the triangle is simple.   The triangle was on the Land Plan issued that date and there are still supposedly 130 acres under consideration at the same time.

It doesn't add up.

[Mike_Cirba]

And with that, unless someone had additional factual evidence to bring to the table, I'm personally satisfied with what is known and we can all draw our own conclusions.

As I mentioned earlier, those who are looking to discredit Hugh Wilson would not be dissuaded by a routing map signed and dated by him...so be it.

I think Jeff has already wisely stepped away, as have others smarter than me.

Thanks for those who actuallly tried to contribute to the exercise.

I'm movin' out! 

[JESII]

I think it's unfortunate that the vast majority of people in these discussions cannot accept and address a countering opinion or question without condecension...if you all had the answers this wouldn't have lasted so long...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Honestly, I don't see any reason left to keep on discussing this.

I've asked several questions to those of you who believe in LIFS that I think are logical, relevant, and obvious, such as how Francis's Committee, who according to Mr Francis were trying to figure out how to fit the last five holes into the routing inexplicably decided to swap 14 perfectly fine acres of gently rolling land that they supposedly already owned across the street from the clubhouse ("now covered with fine homes along GHR") was supposedly swapped for a narrow,  limiting 4.8 acre triangle of land, and those questions get ignored.

At this point, I feel that I'm the only one providing anything like source material and when I think we're making progress as Jeff advances a theory that not only is consistent with the timelines but actually makes sense with the known facts and acreages of the hard evidence at our disposal, you insist we haven't advanced "an inch", because it doesn't work with a literal interpretation of Francis.

So we're stuck.

I've reached the point where I don't think the thread has gone on this long because there are unanswered questions.   Instead, I've reached the point where I think the thread has gone on this long because some people don't like or can't accept the answers.

Out of the blue today I'm spending hours of my day trying to answer questions advanced by Tom MacWood, whose new theory is that because the train to Atlanta in December 1910 supposedly went through Philadelphia, and because a newspaper article that locates Merion Cricket Club in Lakewood, NJ says that they've secured Barker to lay out the golf course, it should now be obvious to everyone that Barker actually designed the course in December 1910, because Merion clearly wanted "the best".

So you know, I wrote back to Phil Young and Tom MacWood privately and let them know that I also have a newspaper article from the day the course opened that states it was layed out by Fred Pickering, and that it was his best work to date.

I suppose based on that article, we should now all admit that we've been wrong with our theories, and the actual architect of the course was the sometimes maligned Mr. Pickering all along.  

Then, about every 5 days or so, I end up having to respond to Patrick Mucci, who starts about 200 prior posts and starts firing off lengthy, inflammatory, bright green posts raising issues that were settled 150 posts ago, and demanding to know the truth and demanding that the club release it's private records for his review and supposed approval.  

The latest is this new "130 acres" theory, which to be honest, also has no supporting evidence with anything to do with the actual club records.   Earlier this evening Tom Paul sent me the following;

As far as I can see from all MCC's records, MCC itself never optioned anything at all of those 338 acres. The only entity that did any optioning of that land was HDC. That was actually mentioned in part of MCC's meeting minutes. By the beginning of Nov. 1910 HDC held title to parts of that 338 acre total or held "options" (which was described as "assignments in blank") to other parcels. I believe the Davis and Taylor properties may've been the latter and perhaps the Dallas Estate too. It could be that some of the participants on GCA don't really understand what an "option" is. And it seems quite likely that some of the newspaper reporters who wrote some of those articles didn't either. Traditionally an "option" has a potential buyer paying a seller a "premium" for an option that generally sets "terms" to purchase at a later date. If the option is enacted by an eventual purchase the premium payment generally becomes part of the purchase price and if the option to purchase is not acted upon the potential buyer gives up the premium payment to the potential seller.

So now I have to decide whether to try and figure out what the hell this means when to be honest, I don't think it was accurately reported, and I'm honestly astounded at the amount of mistakes, misrepresentatioins, and flat-out inaccuracies of all types exist in those articles.   So, I'm left with the decision of trying to pretend those reports are accurate and then try to discuss it seriously, or be left to seem like I'm ignoring important evidence by summarily discounting it.

At some point, it becomes a circus.

A few weeks ago, I thought we had begun to make some progress, and I did enjoy discussing the evidence with you, Bryan, and Jeff.

However, neither of you will give up on the idea that Francis traded for the entire triangle and I frankly don't see how any of the actual evidence in the club records, or even in the news accounts, supports that idea, once the timing of events are considered.

So, we're at an impasse, and without some new evidence, or some smoking gun I've become convinced that we could go another 2000 posts of ever-increasing strained tenor between us and still be left in the same stalled state.

Perhaps that would be tolerable if it was only those of us who could do this type of thing with a decent level of civility, but when every five days I get another barrage from a Patrick calling me a liar, or Tom MacWood appearing with a new theory out of the blue, I think it's time to just move on to much more productive uses of time.

I think if we are all honest with ourselves we'd admit that it's a good idea at this point...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I'll leave this thread with the following thought that I think is pertinent to the discussion;

"It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible". - Aristotle

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan.

Also, I asked this a while back and didn't catch your response.

Does the entire Nov 1910 Land Plan measure out at 338 acres?

Thanks!

Yes, it does measure out to 338 acres, within the limitations we've discussed to death about the distortions in the plan.  The breakdown was:

Johnson Farm  140 137/1000 ac.

Dallas Estate    21 ac.

Taylor Estate    56 ac.

Davis Estate      58 ac.

Connor Estate   63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totaling 4 ac. sold to Land Title and Trust Co. before 1913)

Total                338 137/1000 ac.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan.

Actually, your batting average is only ..400 pct as the other article from Nov 24th I found amd posted previously that mentioned they had secured Barker to do the layout, contrary to Merion;s records, also only mentions 117 acres.  I'm truly beginning to wonder how many of these stories were planted by HDC and or Lloyd to try and gain advantage during negotiations.

Actually, I was going to change my BA to 1.000.  We have a story that says 130 acres, and a second one that corroborates it.  That's as good as it gets.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Tom Paul at first thought it was the RR land 3 acres but his thinking on the matter evolved as I posted in a series of snippets of his posts from Apr-Jun  a week or so back. EDIT - Please see my posts 1855-1856 on this thread that show Tom's various posts on the matter.   Thanks.

I reread them and frankly I don't see the evolution in the thinking.  You're in contact with Tom, ask him if he could just get you to post a simple, categorical correction to post #223 where he said:

"Immediately after "adjoining..." in the Thompson resolution that was approved I left out the part about the app. 3 acre purchase of what we refer to as the "railroad land" for $7,500 and the payment of annual real estate taxes."

Just a simple, no, I was wrong, it was not the purchase of the RR land.  As you know, I'm firmly convinced it was, but I'd like a direct simple retraction of Tom's previous comment, if he's changed his mind.

While you're at it. Can you get him to give you a retraction of his "Lloyd et ux for MCC" statements, if he has changed his mind and it really was "Lloyd et ux for HDC".  Again, I believe his initial statement that it was for MCC is correct.  Why on earth would he hold it for HDC.  It makes no sense.

Recall afterwards how I was asking you if you thought it made any sense that the RR was going to charge 2500 an acre for a purchase yet then agreed to a dollar annual, perpetual lease and how Tom contends that the HDC land was selling at that time for 2500 an acre?

I believe your post 1856 says that the average cost of the remaining 221 acres was going to be $2500.  In any legitimate business transaction there is always a difference between cost and price.

Also, I know the offer letter from HDC to Merion was from the first half of Nov 1910.

Don't know the date of the Merion response and they are not in my possession..

[Bryan Izatt]

Not that I'm wanting to go down the Barker path, but the question that struck me about Connell getting Barker on his own account, was that retaining him must have happened before July 1910.  Was Connell a golf man in any way?  Anything that I've seen on him is about his real estate expertise.  If he wasn't a golf man, how would he have known of Barker, and that he was an architect, and who was apparently then at GCGC?  Is it possible that MCC suggested him, and Connell agreed to pay for him to try to help sell Merion on the land?  Common sense?

  

Bryan,

Barker was in Philadelphia already for the June 1910 US Open he played in at Philadelphia Cricket Club.   I don't know if Connell played golf...he wasn't a member at Merion...but he certainly did seem well-connected.

But his connections were likely in the real estate field.  In keeping with your and Jeff's, the simplest interpretation is the best, it seems likely that Lloyd the golf man, told Connell the real estate guy, about Barker during their discussions and negotiations leading up to July 1.  Connell being the astute business man agreed to pay Barker as a freebie to sweeten the deal.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Believe me, I know I'm neither a mathematician or a statistician.

I guess in thinking about it, I'm trying to figure out the odds of;

Given a value of 338 total acres, and a known subset of 122 acres, what are the odds that a single added value less a single subtracted value equals a known value of 120 acres?

In my example, because the triangle land measures at 4.8 acres, I rounded off to 5 acres and for discussion purposes called it an even swap, or said another way...

Given a value of 338 total acres, and a known subset of 122 acres, and a maximum total of 5 acres swapped both to and from, what are the odds that the total equals a known value of 120 acres?  The odds calculator I used answered 1 out of 41.

You had mentioned you believed that they traded 5 acres for 14 acres, so I ran a similar calc which yielded a much higher result.

I guess in theory the answer could be any value up to 120 acres on either side of the transaction, but the reason I selected 5, or 25, or whatever the number might be, is to put a realistic max possible swap on the calculation so as to be realistic in what they were likely dealing with.

Does that make any more sense?  

Nope, it makes no more sense.  Your and Jeff's theory hinges on GHR being the boundary of 120 acres and the approximate road being the boundary of 122 acres.  Given those two assumptions, and given the location of the two roads there is only one possible outcome for the gives and takes.  There is no probability associated with it.  It is a closed ended question.  The probability is infinity to 1 that they will turn out to be what Jeff measured (assuming he measured accurately, which I trust he did).   There is no possibility that it could be 5 or 25 or 14 or any other number different. 

But, before you declare victory once again, if you measure the gives and takes from the GHR defined 120 acres and the 130 acres as I've defined it, there is again, only one possible answer, and it'll be more like swapping 5 for 14, although I haven't measured it yet.  But, there is only one answer for that configuration.  No probabilities. It will enable LIFS, which is why I think it is correct.  It's a unifying theory for the known information.  It doesn't require us to deny the Francis story nor deny the 130 acre story reported twice, nor deny the land plan and its approximate road.  If Jeff isn't too demoralized by the debate, maybe he'd like to measure it. I will, but it's sort of a waste of time because you will deny it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Good question Jim.  I'm not surprised to see Mike accept and then deflect.

Question: If it were proven that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option and the northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College, would the presence of a triangle on the 11/10/1910 Plan prove to you that the Francis Swap occurred prior to November 10, 1910?

Jim,

Yes, if it were proven that the "northern boundary was the extension of the southern boundary of Haverford College" prior to November 15, 1910, I would certainly have to agree that the Francis swap happened prior to then, but I've not seen any evidence at all that was the case.

However, if it were only proven "that they were initially looking at 130 acres with Lloyd holding 13 of them in an option", I would not necessarily agree, but at least one of the news accounts indicates that they were looking at 130 acres out of a total of 350 acres.    The actual acreage of the five properties at that time was 342 acres, so I can easily see the reporter rounding up to 350.  It's way less likely they would have rounded 117 up to 130.  Also, under that hypothetical I think the most likely possible scenario is that they first secured 117 in November 1911 and then thought they might need more and optioned another 13, either before or after Lloyd's purchase of the 161.   Why does that make more sense?  They'd been nosing around and assessing the property since before July.  They must have had a pretty good idea of what was there and what flex they might need. 

I also honestly think that some of this newspaper information was purposefully mis-fed to news sources as negotiations were underway.

For instance, the one that mentions that a recent sale in the neighborhood went for $8,000 an acre simply sounds like it's trying to drum up interest and acceptance from Merion while they can still get it at the low, low, LOW price of X per acre.   Joe Bausch sent me the neighborhood real estate transactions from that timeframe and there was nothing of the sort.   Not coincidentally, that was also one of the articles that talked about Merion securing 130 acres for their course.  It might interest you and Joe to know that HDC sold Land Title and Trust Co two parcels  of the Connor Estate totaling 4 acres on november 15, 1910 for the princely sum of $25,000.  Not quite $8,000 an acre, but pretty close.

There is so much misinformation and flat out erroneous information of various sorts in that series of articles that I'd much prefer sticking to what I know is accurate from the club records we've produced.


Is there any proof that either the northern boundary stopped at Haverford College or that Merion ever secured 130 acres?  Just a corroborated newspaper story so far, and the fact that it allows inclusion of other "facts" like the Francis land swap.  Of course, if we had access to MCC's records ..........


 

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

If you're leaving the thread because of Pat and Tom  MacW participation then I'd suggest an easier and more productive approach would be to ignore those two.  I think that Jim and I have for the most part been civil.  What is not productive is your current slant that the only valid proof is club records as you seem to be saying in your last posts.  That of course puts those of us who are not Tom or Wayne or people like you who get some tidbits of information at a significant disadvantage.  We need to rely on other sources.

That said, I think that the 130 acre theory is at least as good if not better than the Jeff theory for the reasons I've given in the last few posts. 

[JESII]

However, neither of you will give up on the idea that Francis traded for the entire triangle and I frankly don't see how any of the actual evidence in the club records, or even in the news accounts, supports that idea, once the timing of events are considered.

Mike,

I will not give up the idea that Francis traded for the entire triangle because I wholeheartedly believe he was telling the literal truth, you do not, which is fine...but to discount him you are required to directly connect the date of an idea to the date it was documented and this is failed logic which can be proven in many ways...not the least of which being the fact that the November Land Plan mentiones 117 acres "secured" and does not include the western portion of the Johnson Farm (above current hole #2) and a full 6 weeks later Lloyd buys all 161 acres.

I have said for weeks, initially to Tom, that taking the exact literal date of legal transactions was not going to help solve this thing because the deeds are certainly produced well after the idea for it occurred and official Club minutes generally do not document the small give and take that happens along the way. The idea was to follow the legal/technical timeline to a T and it would support a pro-Wilson position when in fact if we accept Francis at his word, the only "leap" we need to make is to accept that Wilson and his guys were out at least looking the ground over and placing holes in some capacity through the late summer and fall of 1910.

You've said "So now I have to decide whether to try and figure out what the hell this means when to be honest, I don't think it was accurately reported, and I'm honestly astounded at the amount of mistakes, misrepresentatioins, and flat-out inaccuracies of all types exist in those articles.   So, I'm left with the decision of trying to pretend those reports are accurate and then try to discuss it seriously, or be left to seem like I'm ignoring important evidence by summarily discounting it."[/i]

Why does it have to be black and white?

I am not suggesting we selectively choose what we want to fit our theory. That's what you all have been doing. I'm suggesting we put it all in context and look at what seems reasonable...I think that would enable us to follow Aristotle's advice best.



Mike,

Among other possible explanations for the committee never really considering the land west of the clubhouse...my guess would be that they were clearly trying to use the quarry as much as possible...how or why would they go all the way over there? It would take two holes minimum away from the quarry. Like a said, just a guess.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim/Bryan,

If we can focus the discussion on the purchased parcels, swapped lands and acreages and how those events played out in the timeline of what is known, I do have another question or two of you and Bryan.

Perhaps we should start by agreeing on the known facts.

1) Every one of the news accounts, as well as the official Merion documents mention that the club secured 117 acres in the November/December timeframe.  On a related note, Tom Paul has relayed the the offer letter from Connell of HDC to Merion was dated early November 1910.   All of the news accounts I posted were after the November 15, 1910 Bond Solicitation letter from Merion to their members.

2) The most credible of the news accounts that mentions 13 additional acres under option again states that Merion has purchased 117 acres outright, and that Lloyd has another 13 on option for them.   The other news account incorrectly reports the total acreage as well as the price per acre Merion paid, as well as other items reported erroneously.

3) The combination of the Johnson Farm land with an artificial border drawn at the boundary of the Haverford College Land measures 108 acres, and the Dallas Estate measures 21 acres, which makes for 129 acres.

4) The northeastern and southern quadrants of the Johnson Farm measure 119 acres.

5) The 130x190 land of the triangle that Francis references is 4.8 acres.   The overall rectangle of Johnson Farm land above the Haverford College boundary is 10.5 acres, meaning the "unusued" portion of that landform is 5.7 acres

6) The leased 3 acres of Railroad land (transaction was May 1911) was not part of the HDC deal and can be discounted for our immediate purposes.  

7) Although we know the total course opened in 1912 was 123 acres, the magic number we're trying to work towards is the 120.1 acre purchase Merion bought in July 1911.

In July 1910, before HDC had the Dallas Estate under option, Merion reported that they'd probably require almost 120 acres for their golf course.

9) In December 1910, H.G. Lloyd took title to 161 acres, which included the entire Johnson Farm(140 acres) and the Dallas Estate.(22 acres)

10) In July 1911, Merion purchased 120 acres of land formerly owned by HDC, and later by Lloyd.

If you're in agreement that those are the facts as we know them, I have a few questions.   Feel free to add any other relevant facts to the list.

[JESII]

Mike,

In a strict reading, I would say the letter that accompanied the November Land Plan stated that they already "secured" certain land...this implies prior to November per your first Fact.

the rest I think I can buy.


Fire away!

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I believe the securing of those 117 acres preceded that letter by a few days.  If you'd prefer, can we just agree to use Nov 1910 as the timeframe when those acres were secured without specifying a day?

[JESII]

I know there is enough nitpicking, but do you have an option date? Or something else suggesting the 117 was secured only a few days prior?  I am not contending it happened 3 or 4 months earlier, just that it was clearly before and to limit it to "a few days" seems limiting...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim.

The only evidence I'm using for that contention is TP telling me that the date of the formal HDC offer from Connell is early Nov 1910, the optioning of the Dallas property by HDC in Oct 1910, and the flurry of Nov news articles reporting the event.

What do you think?

[JESII]

HDC didn't option Dallas in October, they bought it then.

When did Lesley write his letter soliciting members? I thought it was written November 1, but I also thought it went along with the map dated November 15...when was the letter to the membership actually written that spoke of having 117 acres secured?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

That all went out dated Nov 15th.

It included the notice of securing 117 acres, the land plan, the bond solicitation, and a copy of the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report.

[JESII]

OK...then let's say the land (117 acres) had been "secured" by early November at the latest...fire away.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sounds good...hopefully Bryan will agree.

I'll be back at 2.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but given our disagreements on interpretation I think we need to be as precise as we can about the information we do have.

Jim/Bryan,

If we can focus the discussion on the purchased parcels, swapped lands and acreages and how those events played out in the timeline of what is known, I do have another question or two of you and Bryan.

Perhaps we should start by agreeing on the known facts.

1) Every one of the news accounts, as well as the official Merion documents mention that the club secured 117 acres in the November/December  It was not November/December, it was as Jim says sometime before November 15.   timeframe.  On a related note, Tom Paul has relayed the the offer letter from Connell of HDC to Merion was dated early November 1910.   Sorry, this isn't really a fact since none of the three of us have seen the letter, and the date is inexact.  But, let's let it stand.  There was some discussion between Connell and Lloyd dating back at least to July that lead to an offer letter in early November.   All of the news accounts I posted were after the November 15, 1910 Bond Solicitation letter from Merion to their members.

2) The most credible of the news accounts that mentions 13 additional acres under option again states that Merion has purchased 117 acres outright, and that Lloyd has another 13 on option for them.   The other news account incorrectly reports the total acreage as well as the price per acre Merion paid, as well as other items reported erroneously.

3) The combination of the Johnson Farm land with an artificial border drawn at the boundary of the Haverford College Land measures 108   (108.4) acres, and the Dallas Estate measures 21 (21.02)acres, which makes for 129 (129.42) acres.

4) The northeastern and southern quadrants of the Johnson Farm measure 119 acres.

5) The 130x190 land of the triangle that Francis references is 4.8 acres.   The overall rectangle of Johnson Farm land above the Haverford College boundary is 10.5 acres, meaning the "unusued" portion of that landform is 5.7 acres

6) The leased 3 acres of Railroad land (transaction was May 1911) was not part of the HDC deal and can be discounted for our immediate purposes.  

7) Although we know the total course opened in 1912 was 123 acres, the magic number we're trying to work towards is the 120.1 (120.01)acre purchase Merion bought in July 1911.

In July 1910, before HDC had the Dallas Estate under option, Merion reported that they'd probably require almost 120 acres for their golf course.

9) In December 1910, H.G. Lloyd took title to 161 acres, which included the entire Johnson Farm(140 acres) and the Dallas Estate.(22 acres  (21.02)  )

10) In July 1911, Merion purchased 120 acres of land formerly owned by HDC,    To be correct, the Johnson farm was owned by the Philadelphia & Ardmore Land Company, a separately incorporated PA corporation whose officers were different from HDC's.  It was sold via Rothwell directly to Lloyd.  HDC was not involved.  Perhaps the "Syndicate" included both HDC and PALCO.     and later by Lloyd.

If you're in agreement that those are the facts as we know them, I have a few questions.   Feel free to add any other relevant facts to the list.

I'll add some points later about the assembly of the 338 acre land tract.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()