Talk:Charles Darrow

Please specify
"[I]t was discovered that Darrow had actually stolen the idea [...]." For God's sake, please cite sources! Please specify. Please give details about the case. Where? When?

Were the "Marven Gardens" mentioned in the Landlord's Game? The Marven Gardens are a housing area outside Atlantic City.

See Whatever the spelling, Marven Gardens has its charms.

http://www.adena.com/adena/mo/mo11.htm

There is no direct connection between Charles Todd's game and The Landlord's Game. Or else, prove it.

The story at http://www.theantiquesalmanac.com/monopoly.htm states that "The real story begins with Elizabeth Magie Phillips", but I don't find it decent, since there is no "real story". That article by Bob Brooke is way too anecdotal and gossipy, and I find it implausible. There were many people at the beginning of the 20th Century playing similar games.

2004-12-29T22:45Z 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No one should dispute that Darrow had a reasonable legal right to make and sell copies of Monopoly but what people dislike is the false claim that he invented it. Luckily we don't need to prove the connection between Charles Todd's game and The Landlord's Game since the really important connection is between Charles Todd's game and Charles Darrow's game and Ralph Ansbach has already proved that connection in a court of law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, decided August 26, 1982. (648 F 2d 1316) to be exact.


 * In particular the court said...


 * “...Moreover, the [lower] court’s reference to Darrow as the inventor or creator of the game is clearly erroneous. The record shows, as we stated in Anti-Monopoly I, that the game of “Monopoly” was first played from 1920 to 1932 on various college campuses by a small group of individuals, many of whom were related by blood or marriage. In late 1932 or early 1933 one of these players introduced Charles Darrow to the game, and gave him a handmade game board, rules, and associated equipment. Immediately, thereafter Darrow commenced commercially producing and selling ‘Monopoly’ game equipment.”
 * 611 F2d at 299.


 * We have re-examined the entire record on appeal. Here is what it shows. At some time between 1904 and 1934, the game of monopoly developed. Early equipment was handmade and copied from earlier handmade equipment. All the witnesses presented by Anti-Monopoly insisted that the game was known as “Monopoly” by all who played it, although in most cases the name did not appear on the board itself. The game was played in Reading, Pennsylvania, sometime between 1911 and 1917, but this date may be a little early. In the early 1920s the game was played in Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Smith College, the University of Pennsylvania, and Haverford College. On occasion the rules were privately printed. The game was offered to, but rejected by, Milton Bradley, a leading competitor of Parker Brothers. It was played in and around Reading, Pennsylvania from the early 1920s to the early 1930s. It may have been brought there from the University of Pennsylvania. Players in Reading made up and sold some half dozen sets of equipment at Williams College and University of Michigan. The game next appeared in Indianapolis, where some players marketed it under the name of “Finance.” (Players in Reading sold some of those games, too.) The game of monopoly was brought to Atlantic City, New Jersey in 1931 or thereabouts. The street names used in the game were then changed to Atlantic City street names. The game was taught to Darrow. He sold it to Parker Brothers in 1935, claiming that it was his own invention. Parker Brothers also bought the Finance game from its owners... Robert B.M. Barton, the former President of Parker Brothers, who negotiated with Darrow in 1935, testified that he did not believe Darrow’s claim [that Darrow invented Monopoly.] It is true that Darrow, in his correspondence with Parker Brothers, claimed to have invented the game and offered to sign an affidavit stating his story. However, Robert B. M. Barton, the former president of Parker Brothers, who negotiated with Darrow in 1935, testified that he did not believe Darrow's claim.”

For more interesting information including "the real story" of how Magie's game led to Todd's game (given on oath by witnesses in court), you should read http://tt.tf/gamehist/monopoly-sale/anspach-archives.html as well as the link to the Early History of Monopoly which you can find at the bottom of the Monopoly (game) page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

article lacks citations
I believe this entire article lacks citations. Anyway, I added another known version to the 'evolution' section.Nricketts (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darrow and the controversy of Monopoly's origins
Firstly, how about some structure and formatting to help make this discussion easier to follow... There are plenty of resources available to help you format Wikipedia discussions...

The opening sentence of this article states "Charles Brace Darrow (10 August 1879–29 August 1967) is best known as the inventor of the Monopoly board game." To the casual observer this sounds like an undisputed fact. Anyone reading this discussion page will know that nothing could be further from the truth, which is highlighted just three sentences later!

I have only just begun researching the origins of Monopoly and in many ways was not surprised at all to learn that the details of its origins is shrouded in so much controversy and apparent supression. The article Monopoly (board game) is considerably biased in favour of the Parker Brothers position.

Personally, I find it exceedingly apt that Parther Brothers was able to monopolise a game called Monopoly so successfully!

PS. First sentence changed in lieue of above justification.

--Simonmetcalf (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

birthday
The birthday was changed: Both changes were done without sources. So I think the first date was correct. If you have a good source for another date please insert the source. Greetings --Heiko (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * on 16. July 2005 the birthday 10. August 1889 was inserted
 * on 15. May 2008 the date was changed from 10. August 1889 to 11. August 1879
 * on 10. August 2008 the date was changed from 11. August to auf 10. August 1879

Marven vs Marvin citation
There's a sentence in the article that reads: "During the ten year suit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Darrow had copied down the rules directly (even the misspelling of Marven Gardens as "Marvin Gardens") from the game produced by Charles Todd.[8]" However, in the citation (http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=llr) which discusses the courts rulings, I couldn't find any mention of Marven Gardens being copied misspelled. I'm not sure the best way to resolve this... perhaps put "Citation needed" within the parentheses? ScooterJohn (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of Marvin/Marven Gardens, or of the Todd's in the article, or in the court cases. http://openjurist.org/684/f2d/1316/anti-monopoly-inc-v-general-mills-fun-group-inc http://openjurist.org/611/f2d/296/anti-monopoly-inc-v-general-mills-fun-group Olivertownshend (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed unsourced claim about number of "fundamental errors" named by Parker Brothers
In of the page, there is the following claim that has needed a citation since November 2013:

"The latter company rejected the game for three (not 52 as is popularly believed) "fundamental errors", which included the game's length and complexity."

Basically, I could only find the information on page 49 of Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game--And How It Got That Way, from which it looks like the text was paraphrased. However, I couldn't find where the author's source for that was, and I couldn't find any more authoritative sources on this in Google Books.

If anyone can find an authoritative source for either the 52 errors or 3 errors number, that would be great, but otherwise I've removed the claim and just said that the game was initially rejected. AllenZh (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)