The more I look at these three trees, the more I'm sure that the two in back really are too tall for either to be the Arcade Depot palm. However, I've had a change of heart about the smallest of the three. Reason being, note that the trunk of the one at left has a
very slight curve to the right.
eBay/May 2012
Now, look at this side view of the palm in front of the Arcade Depot. It, too, has a trunk that is ever-so-slightly curved above the base. Kinda makes me go "Hmmmm."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/84263554@N00/7637123686/
Also, going back to the cabinet card above, the wording of the caption intrigues me. Let's assume for a moment that all of the palms we've seen around this section of San Pedro Street are equally old. Wouldn't the neatly-spaced palms that lined the street by the wall make
a prettier and therefore more saleable picture than these would? But instead, the photographer chose the three visibly scruffier and haphazardly-placed palms to be his subjects. That suggests to me that these particular trees were the ones generally known at the time to be THE original "old palms of San Pedro Street," as the caption states.
Below, here we are looking at the three Hammel palms (left foreground) from the northwest looking southeast. In the background are the palms that are behind the wall that lines San Pedro Street. The smaller palm in the foreground, though, clearly seems to be the focus of attention here, and appears to be the very first one that's slated for removal. Although the two at left are obviously taller than all the others pictured here – and therefore likely the oldest of all – transplanting them was probably made problematical by their immediate proximity to each other; their root systems undoubtedly intertwined. If the intention was to preserve just one of the famous "old palms," then the easiest to move and transplant to the Arcade Depot would be the smaller, more isolated one.
http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics37/00068408.jpg
There is, of course, no way to confirm or corroborate any of this speculation, but I'm now willing to go with the idea that the smallest of the three Hammel palms is the one that stood in front of the Arcade Depot, and which now stands in its place of honor at Exposition Park.
http://www.lamag.com/citythink/cityt...dest-palm-tree
Here, looking from SE to NW, it appears to me that all of the Hammel palms which stood in the background have already been removed, and this picture shows the removal of the trees that grew behind the wall that lined San Pedro Street. I think it's highly likely that ALL of the San Pedro Street palms were removed to other locations, not simply destroyed. Palm trees were far too valuable a commodity in those days to simply cut down; they were doubtless sold for a handsome price to other landowners and replanted elsewhere. So, it may well be that some of the other San Pedro Street fan palms yet survive today, though their provenance as being among the oldest trees in Los Angeles has been lost over the years.
-----
My overall conclusion is that I now believe that the Arcade Depot/Exposition Park palm is the oldest known living thing in Los Angeles. Judging by height, the
Washingtonia filifera pictured in front of the Arcade Depot c.1888 is at least 40 years old, which makes it older than the twin rows of
W. robusta of Palm Drive (
the Longstreet Palms), whose origin
I dated to the period of the Civil War. The latter, however, are almost certainly the oldest specimens of that particular species still extant in the city, and are therefore no less worthy of monument status.
The Arcade Depot palm and the palms of Palm Drive were both eminently famous in their day. Now that they have all arisen out of obscurity, I think it's high time their historical importance is once again acknowledged, and celebrated.