[John_Cullum]

David,

Thank you for the well thougt out response. I am satisfied that the following part of your reply is fairly well accurate:

- And Wilson was seeking and receiving M&W's advice on a variety of issues from early on in Wilson's involvement until after the course was planned.
- And Wilson appears to have been the type to seek out and follow expert advice (see the mass of agronomy letters.)
- And three weeks before M&W's second visit to Merion, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA with M&W going over how they should  lay out Merion East, and how the how the underlying principles of  the great holes could be applied on the ground at Merion.
- And according to Alan Wilson, M&W advised Merion as to the layout of Merion East, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
- And, according to TEPaul, on their second visit Macdonald and Whigham spent the day going over the land again and "approved" the final routing plan that would go to the board a few weeks later.

 

Accepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake

[Mike_Cirba]

There's really no point in trying to cut through the flurry of fluent flatulism but think a few articles are relevant to the discussion;

Jim Sullivan,

Here's a snippet from Tillinghast's opening review of Merion when it opened talking about the dearth of great courses in Philly.  

Interestingly, he doesn't mention the designer, CB Macdonald, in the entire article.   I guess Tilly was purposefully lying, as well.  




Tom MacWood/All,

To the point about Merion being a "work in progress" here's an article from 1916 that talks about the number of recent changes being made to the course for the US Amateur;



Here's a smal snippet where the author, William H. Evans, credits the work and provides Wilson's street cred.

If you don't know who Evans was, ask Joe Bausch.  

Apparently he's another Philadelphia liar, as must have been Hugh Wilson, who never refuted a single one of the dozens of attributions that occurred during his lfetime.

But David tells us they were just confused...




btw, Tom...about your statement;

"It was a contour map with an architectural plan on it. Which is why Oakley called it a blue print in his response back, and why they both referred to it as a blue print in the subsequent letters."


It is wholly unsupported...

There is no way you can know if that plan Wilson sent to Oakley that they both referred to as a blueprint was simply a blueprint of the topographical contour lines of the entire property without any architectural drawing or marking on it or not.
 
Furthermore, when they talked about existing sod samples or grasses (or corn) on the property they referred to sections of the property by letters (A, B, E etc) and not by holes or fairways or greens et al. Even the word "fair green" had some multiple meanings back then including what we in golf today technically refer to in a Rules context as "through the green."


Dan,

Perhaps you should ask David why Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock, two courses that Macdonald DID design around the same time, had no such concerns regarding attribution... 

[David Amarnek]

Tom,
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I've never exchanged any words with you in the past and with that remark, I will continue that way.
David M. at least allows that I am entitled to an opinion.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
That article says that Winthrop Sargent is the chairman of the green committee and that Wilson had been chairman for many years. Sargent became the chairman at the end of 1914. Based on that it sounds like Wilson was chairman at the old course?

IMO it would be simpler to mark the samples A, B, C, D etc than to describe each as 1st green or 12th fairway (A) 100 yards short of green or 17th green or 12th fairway (B) 75 yards from the tee 10 yards off of the right of fairway or 7th fairway.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
That article says that Winthrop Sargent is the chairman of the green committee and that Wilson had been chairman for many years. Sargent became the chairman at the end of 1914. Based on that it sounds like Wilson was chairman at the old course?

IMO it would be simpler to mark the samples A, B, C, D etc than to describe each as 1st green or 12th fairway (A) 100 yards short of green or 17th green or 12th fairway (B) 75 yards from the tee 10 yards off of the right of fairway or 7th fairway.

Tom,

Good question...I'm not sure and it's difficult to know exactly what Evans means by "many years".   As I mentioned, I know Wilson resigned citing need to focus on his insurance business in December 1914, but as is evident from the article, that didn't seem to  lessen his involvement with the architecture and agronomy of the course at Merion.  It's tough to know if Evans was speaking backwards before 1912 when he wrote in 1916.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I've never exchanged any words with you in the past and with that remark, I will continue that way.
David M. at least allows that I am entitled to an opinion.

David
You are entitled to your opinion. You shared a similar opinion on another Merion thread a few months ago. At that time you admitted you hadn't read David's essay or followed any of the evidence. If you are not interested in the history of Merion or the history of golf architecture, thats OK by me, but why do you find it necessary to tell people who are honestly interested in discovery the truth and have devoted considerable effort to that end that they are wasting or have wasted their time?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Thank you for the well thougt out response. I am satisfied that the following part of your reply is fairly well accurate:

- And Wilson was seeking and receiving M&W's advice on a variety of issues from early on in Wilson's involvement until after the course was planned.
- And Wilson appears to have been the type to seek out and follow expert advice (see the mass of agronomy letters.)
- And three weeks before M&W's second visit to Merion, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA with M&W going over how they should  lay out Merion East, and how the how the underlying principles of  the great holes could be applied on the ground at Merion.
- And according to Alan Wilson, M&W advised Merion as to the layout of Merion East, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
- And, according to TEPaul, on their second visit Macdonald and Whigham spent the day going over the land again and "approved" the final routing plan that would go to the board a few weeks later.

I appreciate you acknowledging those points as accurate.   Those points alone establish way more involvement by M&W than modern Merion has credited to M&W, but let's set that aside for now.   I am curous where I fell short on the rest of them.   I was trying to avoid speculative leaps but perhaps I failed or perhaps you are just are not familiar with all of the information (who could be with this morass.)

Here are the points you did not accept, with my explanation of the sources.

- M&W visited the site at least twice, not just once.  Not seriously disputed.  He came once in June 1910 and again in March 1911.  
- And according to Robert Lesley, after M&W's first visit, Merion's site committee recommended the purchase of the golf course land based largely on M&W's advice.  This is directly from the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Bd.  (I think Lelsey used the word "opinions" instead of "advice."
- And Merion even added acreage they were apparently not previously considering based on M&W's advice.  
- And when Merion announced that experts were at work on the plans (either late December 1910 or early January 1911) Wilson was by no means an expert, and had only just been appointed to the Construction Committee if he had been appointed yet at all.  The date is based on a early January newspaper article that cribbed heavily on this announcement.   And Hugh Wilson himself acknowledges he knew no more than the average club member.  
- And in the two Board Meetings about which we have information, M&W's opinions were presented and the board apparently acted on their advice.   Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And I have seen no direct evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson was even mentioned in Merion's board meetings about the land or the final routing plan, nor is their any direct evidence that Merion ever chose him to plan the course.     Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And Wilson attempted to build holes that are synonomous with CBM designs even though he had never seen the holes on which CBM's holes were modeled.   Lots of sources, including Wilson, Lesley, Tillinghast, Findlay, and local news accounts before and after the opening.
- And Whigham, who was there, included Merion in a list of famous courses designed by CBM.  See Bahto's book.

Accepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake

I am not inclined to take credit away from Wilson either.   I am just trying figure out what happened.   But what TEPaul has been saying latety, about Merion always acknowledging, all of this?   Demonstrably false.  

_____________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

No matter how many times you post those articles, they still will not establish what you think they establish.      

By the way, how's your time away from posting on this thread working out for you?

Did Wayne get back to you in answer to my questions based on the 1928 deed he provided you to post?  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

But you most assuredly ARE trying to take credit away from Hugh Wilson.

You are trying to take away credit for routing the golf course and for the design of the holes.  That is basically the thesis statement of your essay, and you seem very willing to give that credit to ANYONE but Wilson, to the point of absurdly that two men who served under Wilson on his committee deserve some credit while he does not.

You're simply trying to find evidence to support your thesis and summarily discounting or ignoring everything else.

Please don't tell us you're some objective observer just looking to find out what happened.

You're an advocate for a previously conceived position and a very clever one at that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Careful, David...

I seem to be the last remaining link to the information you seem to want so badly.

I think you'll miss me when I'm gone.

[DMoriarty]

David,

But you most assuredly ARE trying to take credit away from Hugh Wilson.

You are trying to take away credit for routing the golf course and for the design of the holes.  That is basically the thesis statement of your essay, and you seem very willing to give that credit to ANYONE but Wilson, to the point of absurdly that two men who served under Wilson on his committee deserve some credit while he does not.

You're simply trying to find evidence to support your thesis and summarily discounting or ignoring everything else.

Please don't tell us you're some objective observer just looking to find out what happened.

You're an advocate for a previously conceived position and a very clever one at that.

As is almost always the case, you have misrepresented my motives and my beliefs.  All I am trying to do is figure out who did what.  Wilson did a lot for Merion and golf in general, and he very much deserves credit for his role.    He was involved in the planning process, he laid the course on the ground, he grew the grass, he modified the course, he went abroad to get ideas for the finishing touches, he incorporated them into the course, he rebuilt three greens because of drainage problems, he added the white sand, he regrassed a large area south of ardmore and on and on. IN FACT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE WAS IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING FROM THE TIME THE COURSE WAS FIRST BUILT UNTIL HIS UNTIMELY DEATH, AND MAYBE EVEN AFTER, SINCE THEY MAY MADE CHANGES THAT HE HAD INITIATED!.    

That you take an investigation into what happened as an affront to Hugh Wilson shows how little regard you have for objectivity in this matter.

Careful, David...

I seem to be the last remaining link to the information you seem to want so badly.

I think you'll miss me when I'm gone.

I don't think so.  I could do without for phony righteous indignation, your never ending stream of misrepresentations of my position, your daily false accusations.  I don't enjoy having to explain even the simplest things to you at least 50 times.   I certainly won't miss your third-hand recitation of self-serving and misleading information from TEPaul and Wayne.    

We need verifiable facts, not what you, Wayne, and TEPaul tell us to believe.    And given that you guys have no intention of sharing any verifiable facts that might hurt your story, I really don't think you serve much purpose here at all except to clutter the board with your nonsense.   So I say don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Tony_Chapman]

All I am trying to do is figure out who did what.  Wilson did a lot for Merion and golf in general, and he very much deserves credit for his role.    He was involved in the planning process, he laid the course on the ground, he grew the grass, he modified the course, he went abroad to get ideas for the finishing touches, he incorporated them into the course, he rebuilt three greens because of drainage problems, he added the white sand, he regrassed a large area south of ardmore and on and on. IN FACT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE WAS IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING FROM THE TIME THE COURSE WAS FIRST BUILT UNTIL HIS UNTIMELY DEATH, AND MAYBE EVEN AFTER, SINCE THEY MAY MADE CHANGES THAT HE HAD INITIATED!.    

David -- If this is your stance, what is it you are trying to find out about Macdonald? Back on like page 48 of this fiasco, I think I posted something to the effect that I thought it was fair to say that he helped in sight selection, found some better golf course land for the fine folks at Merion and, ultimately, when Merion thought they had a decent routing he approved. Is there more to this than that? And, if you've laid it out before and I've lost it, I apologize for not seeing it. Part of me thinks there is NO WAY that if C.B. Macdonald routed Merion he wouldn't have let the whole world know about it.

[DMoriarty]

David -- If this is your stance, what is it you are trying to find out about Macdonald? Back on like page 48 of this fiasco, I think I posted something to the effect that I thought it was fair to say that he helped in sight selection, found some better golf course land for the fine folks at Merion and, ultimately, when Merion thought they had a decent routing he approved. Is there more to this than that? And, if you've laid it out before and I've lost it, I apologize for not seeing it.

Yes.  I think there is more.  For one thing, I think M&W were involved in routing the course, along with Barker, Francis & Lloyd, and possibly Wilson.  For another, we know that they spent two days teaching Wilson & Co. how to lay out Merion East.  But the bottom line is that I think that Merion East was largely a M&W design, much as some of the early courses largely built by Raynor were largely M&W designs.   It may not look like it aesthetically because neither Macdonald nor Raynor laid it out and built it, but the bones are there.     

But this is largely a different discussion.   One that hopefully we can get to if the hidden information ever comes out so we can put Part I behind us. 

Part of me thinks there is NO WAY that if C.B. Macdonald routed Merion he wouldn't have let the whole world know about it.

I don't have time to go into this now, and have gone into it before, but perhaps your opinion is being shaped by the reams of misinformation about the general character of Macdonald that TEPaul and Wayne have long spread on this website.   

[John_Cullum]

David,

Thank you for the well thought out response. I am satisfied that the following part of your reply is fairly well accurate:

- And Wilson was seeking and receiving M&W's advice on a variety of issues from early on in Wilson's involvement until after the course was planned.
- And Wilson appears to have been the type to seek out and follow expert advice (see the mass of agronomy letters.)
- And three weeks before M&W's second visit to Merion, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA with M&W going over how they should  lay out Merion East, and how the how the underlying principles of  the great holes could be applied on the ground at Merion.
- And according to Alan Wilson, M&W advised Merion as to the layout of Merion East, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
- And, according to TEPaul, on their second visit Macdonald and Whigham spent the day going over the land again and "approved" the final routing plan that would go to the board a few weeks later.

I appreciate you acknowledging those points as accurate.   Those points alone establish way more involvement by M&W than modern Merion has credited to M&W, but let's set that aside for now.   I am curous where I fell short on the rest of them.   I was trying to avoid speculative leaps but perhaps I failed or perhaps you are just are not familiar with all of the information (who could be with this morass.)

Here are the points you did not accept, with my explanation of the sources.

- M&W visited the site at least twice, not just once.  Not seriously disputed.  He came once in June 1910 and again in March 1911.  
- And according to Robert Lesley, after M&W's first visit, Merion's site committee recommended the purchase of the golf course land based largely on M&W's advice.  This is directly from the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Bd.  (I think Lelsey used the word "opinions" instead of "advice."
- And Merion even added acreage they were apparently not previously considering based on M&W's advice.  
- And when Merion announced that experts were at work on the plans (either late December 1910 or early January 1911) Wilson was by no means an expert, and had only just been appointed to the Construction Committee if he had been appointed yet at all.  The date is based on a early January newspaper article that cribbed heavily on this announcement.   And Hugh Wilson himself acknowledges he knew no more than the average club member.  
- And in the two Board Meetings about which we have information, M&W's opinions were presented and the board apparently acted on their advice.   Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And I have seen no direct evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson was even mentioned in Merion's board meetings about the land or the final routing plan, nor is their any direct evidence that Merion ever chose him to plan the course.     Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And Wilson attempted to build holes that are synonomous with CBM designs even though he had never seen the holes on which CBM's holes were modeled.   Lots of sources, including Wilson, Lesley, Tillinghast, Findlay, and local news accounts before and after the opening.
- And Whigham, who was there, included Merion in a list of famous courses designed by CBM.  See Bahto's book.

Accepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake

I am not inclined to take credit away from Wilson either.   I am just trying figure out what happened.   But what TEPaul has been saying latety, about Merion always acknowledging, all of this?   Demonstrably false.  

_____________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

No matter how many times you post those articles, they still will not establish what you think they establish.      

By the way, how's your time away from posting on this thread working out for you?

Did Wayne get back to you in answer to my questions based on the 1928 deed he provided you to post?  

David

Please understand that it is not that I don't accept them. What I quoted is what I see as the real crux of your position. I don't put as much weight on alot of that other material as you do. Largely because of inadequate sources. I don't give the newspaper articles much credence at all. I have spent alot of my life in the fact finding business, so my conclusions are reached from my past experience, as are everyone's. It's just my belief formed after careful review of the facts. I do think it is very possible that some of Barker's plan was used. To date that is the only "plan" anyone has ever really acknowledged.

PS-If this response seems to ramble, it's because I am having a very difficult time with my screen. I can't see what I'm typing when a post gets long. Is anyone else having this problem. The screen jumps all around

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Again, what tasks specifically do you think Wilson did to "lay out the course on the ground"?  

I'm asking because I think you know for certain that no one would have given him contemporaneous credit, much yet state that he "deserves the congratulations of all golfers" as Tillinghast said after the course opened if it was simply constructing the course to someone else's plans.   Why would he be called "the genius behind the course at Merion" if he was simply following instructions?

Besides, we know Fred Pickering was the construction foreman.

What do you think Hugh Wilson did specifically between January 1911 and September 1912 that he garnered such laurels and sterling reputation that Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel and Franklin Meehan immediately sought his expertise for design and construction purposes immediately after the opening of Merion East?

[DMoriarty]

. . .
Here are the points you did not accept, with my explanation of the sources.

- M&W visited the site at least twice, not just once.  Not seriously disputed.  He came once in June 1910 and again in March 1911.   
- And according to Robert Lesley, after M&W's first visit, Merion's site committee recommended the purchase of the golf course land based largely on M&W's advice.  This is directly from the July 1, 1910 Site Committee report to the Bd.  (I think Lelsey used the word "opinions" instead of "advice."
- And Merion even added acreage they were apparently not previously considering based on M&W's advice. 
- And when Merion announced that experts were at work on the plans (either late December 1910 or early January 1911) Wilson was by no means an expert, and had only just been appointed to the Construction Committee if he had been appointed yet at all.  The date is based on a early January newspaper article that cribbed heavily on this announcement.   And Hugh Wilson himself acknowledges he knew no more than the average club member. 
- And in the two Board Meetings about which we have information, M&W's opinions were presented and the board apparently acted on their advice.  Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And I have seen no direct evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson was even mentioned in Merion's board meetings about the land or the final routing plan, nor is their any direct evidence that Merion ever chose him to plan the course.    Again, based on what we know about the Bd. meetings, where M&W's opinions were presented to the board.
- And Wilson attempted to build holes that are synonomous with CBM designs even though he had never seen the holes on which CBM's holes were modeled.   Lots of sources, including Wilson, Lesley, Tillinghast, Findlay, and local news accounts before and after the opening.
- And Whigham, who was there, included Merion in a list of famous courses designed by CBM.  See Bahto's book.

Accepting all of that as correct, I still am not inclined to take the "credit" away from Wilson. I am not so sure Tom Paul would disagree with your conclusions. He has told me that McDonald was always recognized as having a substantial participation in the "design" of Merion East. I think this has gotten to the point of argument for argument's sake

I am not inclined to take credit away from Wilson either.   I am just trying figure out what happened.   But what TEPaul has been saying latety, about Merion always acknowledging, all of this?   Demonstrably false. 

_____________________________________________

. . .

David

Please understand that it is not that I don't accept them. What I quoted is what I see as the real crux of your position. I don't put as much weight on alot of that other material as you do. Largely because of inadequate sources. I don't give the newspaper articles much credence at all. I have spent alot of my life in the fact finding business, so my conclusions are reached from my past experience, as are everyone's. It's just my belief formed after careful review of the facts. I do think it is very possible that some of Barker's plan was used. To date that is the only "plan" anyone has ever really acknowledged.

PS-If this response seems to ramble, it's because I am having a very difficult time with my screen. I can't see what I'm typing when a post gets long. Is anyone else having this problem. The screen jumps all around

Part of my post was confusing.
- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks.   The announcement  was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.
- The comments about the board meeting come from documents written by Robert Lesley and Merion's board regarding the 1910 meeting, and are from TEPaul's depiction of the April 1911 meeting, which unfortunately is the only information we have.

[DMoriarty]

_____________________________________________________

David,

Again, what tasks specifically do you think Wilson did to "lay out the course on the ground"?  

I answered this above.

I'm asking because I think you know for certain that no one would have given him contemporaneous credit, much yet state that he "deserves the congratulations of all golfers" as Tillinghast said after the course opened if it was simply constructing the course to someone else's plans.   Why would he be called "the genius behind the course at Merion" if he was simply following instructions?

I think he was given credit for laying the course out on the ground.  Just like Lesley wrote.   At the time, Mike, laying out and building these courses was much more celebrated than coming up with the plan.  The whole notion of golf architecture as we think of it was just getting going.  The examples are plentiful.  If you don't believe me then do your own research or have Joe Bausch do it for you.  

Besides, we know Fred Pickering was the construction foreman.

  Not in January 1911 he wasn't.

What do you think Hugh Wilson did specifically between January 1911 and September 1912 that . . .

 

We've gone through this.  I don't get what you don't get.   I'll go slowly . . .
- I don't know what if anything he did in January 1911 except for communicate with Charles Macdonald and then follow his good advice.  
- Then on February 1, 1911, he sent a letter to Piper mentioning he had been communicating with CBM, and realized the value of his advice and was following it.  He also had a contour map of the course sent as well.  
-  Then for the rest of the month he waited for the weather improve so he could start preparing the course to grow grass, and he also wrote a bunch of letters seeking agronomy advice.
-  Then in early to mid-March he and his committee traveled to NGLA for two days, went over CBM's plans and learned how to lay out Merion East.   He also continued to seek agronomy advice and continued to prepare to grow grass.
-  Then they came back and in the second part of March or very early April and rearranged their course and came up with five variations, according to M&W's directions.  They also began preparing the course for growing grass.
-  Then in early April they had M&W come down again to make sure they got it right and to help them sort out the five variations, so that M&W could determine the final routing plan.
-  Then starting later in April, after the Board approved the final routing plan as determined by M&W, they got busy building the course.
-  They spent the summer building the course and preparing the soil.
-  Then in September the seeded the Fairways and Greens.
-  Then in the spring of 1912 Wilson went abroad to study the great courses.
-  In May of 1912 he returned from his trip and continued tinkering with the course, adding some mounding, and planting (transplanting?) some imported bents, and building some bunkers.  
-  Then in September of 1912 the course opened, but there were plenty of bunkers yet to be added.
-  Then in December of 1912 they started again with the West Course.
-  Then in April of 1913 he went sport-fishing in Florida, for a much needed break.  

Actually Mike, if you want to know more about it I suggest you read:
1.  The agronomy letters.  
2.  The 1916 Article in its entirety.  (It still shocks me that a supposed Wilson expert such as yourself never even bothered to read this!)

These two sources lay it all out, in great detail.   And not a word about any design ideas, or hole placement or design concept, or any such thing.  Except of course for the discussion of what CBM and HJW contributed.  

. . . he garnered such laurels and sterling reputation that Robert Lesley, Clarence Geist, Ellis Gimbel and Franklin Meehan immediately sought his expertise for design and construction purposes immediately after the opening of Merion East?

What he did (see above) was very important and he did a great job.  He deserved the laurels.  And by the time he was done he had completed an apprenticeship with the top designer in the country, he had picked the brain of the top agronomists on an almost daily basis (looking at the Ag letters, who knows how many letters he sent to CBM), he had supervised the top course builder in the country, and he ended up laying out and building a very good course.  

So by this point he surely was ready for Merion West and Seaview.  And Mike, I know you don't like hearing this, but but as sporty as Merion West is, it pales in comparison to Merion East.  And Seaview did not exactly set the world on fire.   So if Wilson was the second coming of Old Tom, then what happened after Merion East?    

So Mike.  That is what I think he did.

NOW IT IS YOUR TURN.  TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT HE DID DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD?   NOT WHAT YOU INFER HE DID, OR WHAT YOU HOPE HE DID, OR WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE, BUT WHAT HE DID?   AND PROVIDE ME YOUR SOURCES FOR EVERYTHING YOU THINK HE DID?   THANKS.  

[John_Cullum]

- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks.   The announcement  was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.

And do we not know that the deed proves otherwise. As I recall HDC still held title to the property in January 1911.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - from your timeline in post #2615 you only missed one thing, I think.  This from Bryan's timeline:

(as of the second week of Mar. 1911)  

“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses...."

Don't want to start the Phil argument again, but to me the reference there to clearly to one and the same committee, Hugh Wilson's committee; the same committee that "desires to report..." is the one that then "went down to the National..."

Peter    

[Bryan Izatt]

- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks.   The announcement  was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.

And do we not know that the deed proves otherwise. As I recall HDC still held title to the property in January 1911.

John,

Lloyd, personally, owned the property in January 1911, not HDC.

[DMoriarty]

- The announcement that experts are at work planning the course was not from a newspaper article but from Merion's board which also announced the purchase had been completed, and was part of the material I got from the Sayre's scrapbooks.   The announcement  was not dated, but the newspaper article (I think Jan 6, 1911) heavily cribbed on this announcement, and was therefore used to determine the outside date of the article.

And do we not know that the deed proves otherwise. As I recall HDC still held title to the property in January 1911.

HDC and P&A transferred title to H.G. Lloyd around Dec. 17, 1910 or thereabouts.  So MCC had not technically taken title.   But MCC sure acted as if they had, although they covered themselves seamlessly with a little well placed passive voice.  Strunk and White wouldn't be pleased but perhaps it served its purpose. 



More importantly, there is nothing ambiguous about "experts are at work preparing plans for a Golf Course that will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country." 

Can anyone really imagine that Hugh Wilson was one of the experts to which Sayres was referring?   There is no evidence that the Merion's Board even knew that Wilson was involved in the project, yet we are to believe that Merion's Board was proclaiming him an expert capable of planning a course that would rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country!"   Imagine the understated Hugh Wilson standing for that this Cirbesqe hyperbole.  Whether press accounts did or not, the men of Merion knew the difference between an expert and a layman, and Hugh Wilson was very much a layman. 

As for the date, here is the January 7, 1911 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer.  (Hopefully you can read it.)   



Note that the article cribs directly from the MCC announcement, indicating that the announcement was one of the sources for the article.  Therefore the announcement predates the January 7, 1911 article. 

[DMoriarty]

David - from your timeline in post #2615 you only missed one thing, I think.  This from Bryan's timeline:

(as of the second week of Mar. 1911)  

“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses...."

Don't want to start the Phil argument again, but to me the reference there to clearly to one and the same committee, Hugh Wilson's committee; the same committee that "desires to report..." is the one that then "went down to the National..."

Peter    

Peter,  Interesting editing.  Here is what it says if you go a bit further . . .

“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......"

It makes no sense, especially is you consider that it is Lesley who is the speaker!    My guess is TEPaul was obviously fudging something and he was not very careful.     He is your pal.  Why don't you ask him to come clean with what it really said?   If I had to guess, I'd say that there is something missing and/or wrong between "on the new ground" and "went down to the National."  

If someone can come up with the correct language and it reflects that the only committee referred to is Wilson's Construction Committee, I'll be glad to change my take.   But since it is Lesley speaking it makes much more sense if only the portion after the comma that begins "they" refers to Wilson's Committee.

Perhaps it really said:  "Your committee desires to inform you that after laying out many different courses on the new ground we appointed a construction committee and they went down to the National . . . ."     Just a blind guess of course, but I am tired of only TEPaul and Wayne getting to make up their own supporting evidence and so I thought I'd try to make up my own.   At least mine makes sense grammatically, as long as we change the next "we" to "they" as well.      Wouldn't it be interesting if I had it about right?

Don't get me wrong.  It doesnt change much even if it was only one committee.  But something is extremely fishy about TEPaul's transcription. Anyone who thinks it hasn't been messed with is deluding themselves.

How about a wager? Do any of the TomPaulogists care to bet whether TEPaul accurately transcribed this segment to us?   I'm game.  

[DMoriarty]

John,

Lloyd, personally, owned the property in January 1911, not HDC.

Bryan, it may seem like semantics and nitpicking but I think that in time we will find out that this was not really the case, at least not in the way we usually understand the verb "to own."   I agree that Lloyd technically held title at this point, but there had to have been other agreements that impacted his legal rights and obligations with regard to this property.  For one example, there is the Cuyler letter, which supposedly indicated that Lloyd would hold title for HDC, indicating that he was acting on their behalf.  For another example we have MCC announcing the purchase of the property, and Wilson apparently thinking that the land had already been purchased, and Wilson working the land before title transferred to MCCGA.   And for what it is worth, the newspaper article above mentions that "financial difficulties"  that delayed the deal.  

So I am still sticking with my original position-- Lloyd was most likely acting as a bridge or Guarantor on behalf of one or both parties, and was holding the land pursuant to this role.  For example he may have put up the money and held the land as collateral until HDC and MCC got their ducks in a row.    Given that the Taylor option was exercised at about the same time, HDC may haveneeded money quickly to exercise before expiration, thus necessitating Lloyd's intervention.

I realize that this is all very speculative, but while it may sound odd I think it is also speculative to say that he "owned the property" in that the status of the land at this point is still very much unresolved.  

I guess I am saying that I'd be more comfortable with he held title in his own name, but perhaps  I should have just said that.  

___________________________

While I am nitpicking your time line states that the first Construction Committee took place on January 11, 1911, and your source is TEPaul's transcription of the meeting minutes.   

Can you point me to where TEPaul wrote this, because I have no recollection of this.   

Thanks. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Everyone who credited Hugh Wilson with Merion including George Thomas and Tillinghast credited him as the architect of Merion, no matter how much you and MacWood hate the guy and his blueblood, Ivy League roots.

Your attempts to destroy his reputation and call him a liar by omission (there is no way a person who simply grassed the course and constructed it to someone else's plans is not a liar by definition if they did nothing to correct all of the news accounts and other tributes and accolades that followed.him after the opening of Merion East) are obviously unceasing, unrelenting, impervious to logic and counter-evidence, and there is no point having any further discussion on the matter.

While you may be able to convince some casual observers who only know and understand bits and pieces of what transpired as twisted through your destruction of the meaning of common terms and wholesale creation and distortion of historical facts, I am confident that it will ultimately have no real impact on the true historical record.

Good day.

 

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Wilson should be credited, after all built the course almost single handedly. If those letters show anything they show Wilson worked his ass off getting the course built, from testing the soil, to choosing the seed, to finding a seed merchant(s), to choosing the fertilizer, to buying the fertilizer, to coordinating with the contractor, to finding a sand source, to buying sand, to finding greenkeeper, to having to rebuild all the greens the following year, to sodding all the greens the following year, etc, etc. He also continued to remodel the course over the next dacade+.

Did Wilson have a day job during this period? He also took several weeks to go Europe in 1912.

Wilson visited CBM around March 11 or 12. CBM returned on April 6. Did Wilson & Committee layout five distinct routings during this period?

[Tom MacWood]

I also believe those letters only tell half the story of the construction. I've got to believe there were similar communications between Wilson and CBM and Wilson and Patterson,Wylde & Co. If you notice on a few occasions Wilson does not follow Oakley's instructions, I suspect he was listening to someone else. You also find Oakley at odds with some of Carters/Beale's advice.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()