-1715 FLEET CONSENSUS-

[Shawmen]

Okay people, it's showtime...What is the opinion of those here regarding what ships MAY have been found, and which ships MAY be missing?? What is the opinion of those here regarding whether or not the Sebastian-Jupiter <1 mile zone is overworked and underfed?? What is the opinion of those here regarding the "Northern Escape" theory (St. Augustine northword) as an actual 1715 ship vs. a wrecked recovery vessel?? What is the opinion of those here of the fleet having a scattered running order from NW to SE on the outer NE edge of storm tracking NW from the SE, with all being lost in a 3-6 mile range of each other EXCEPT for the Griffon which got it's kick in the rear from breaking NE from the fleet earlier?? And finally, does anyone know of anyone who has done any "true" recon/salvage in 30 foot plus waters?? Blowers, without serious mods, would be really challenged at +30 feet to be effective down to the bedrock.

For those that may be wondering, I've been researching this gig for 5+ years and been lurking here for just as many. Finally time to "bet the farm" (literally) and get into this already starting next season. Any and all sincere/professional opinions are greatly appreciated in advance.


Good hunting and Safe Seas to all...

[ivan salis]

based upon my research THERE WERE 11 SPANISH FLEET VESSELS (6 FOR ECHEVERZ AND 5 FOR UBILLA) AND THE FRENCH VESSEL GRIFFON -- there were 8 vessels lost in the main "fleet' wreck area -- all 5 of Ubillas vessels and 3 of Echeverz vessels --(the two major treasure vessels and the "dutch prize vessel known as "San Miguel" / senor de popa / Olamdesa )--

YNDA --the fleet pilot major under Ubilla on August 16th, 1715 testified that 3 vessels of echeverz fleet (the CONCEPCION , the tabacco hauler SAN MIGUEL and the french prize vessel "EL CIERVO") PLUS THE FRENCH VESSEL GRIFFON TOOK A MORE NORTHLY TACK --BEFORE THE STORM STRUCK *

SALMON in his Sept 20th,1715 letter to the king reports nine known lost (the eight down in the main fleet wreck area plus the concepcion ) WITH 2 MISSING AND PERSUMED LOST AT SEA --DUE TO WRECKAGE FOUND OF THE NORTH COAST OF ST AUGUSTINE)

three of echeverz's fleet (the Concepcion, the tabbaco hauler San Miguel and the "french prize vessel" aka as "El Ciervo" along with the french vessel Griffon broke away and sailed a more northerly tack -- of the four only the griffon cut away to the east ealier on savng herself

the Concepcion sank some where around the cape * -- since 4 survivors from her floated a few days on a hatch cover before washing ashore on the cape.

of the french prize and tobbaco hauler San Miguel it was thought one or both sank off of st augustine due to wreckage of a large vessel or vessels washing up on shore on the north coast of st augustine .


of the vessel in nassau sound -- govenor spotswood of virginia (whos spying network was excellent at gathering info ) in his letter of oct 24th of 1715 to lord stanhope -(home sec of britian) clearly spells out EXACTLY the details of it --it was a barcalonga sent from havana to the 1715 wrecksites to pick up vips and important treasure for return to spain --it wrecked 40 miles NORTHWARD OF ST AUGUSTINE --(NASSAU SOUND ) -- quite simple and eazy to understand --why 1715 era fleet goods were found there --since as a rescue and recovery vessel it was carrying it as cargo

now for the "bad" news ==the 8 state legally permitted old fisher "main treasure" fleet wreck sites while they have been heavily hunted in the past could produce more finds but its ownership recently changed hands and i do not know whast the new owners ideals are on subletting on their leases

any wrecks found around st augustine would require a "permit" and being it st augustine the state would say "historic zone --no permit allowed"

the rescue and recovery barcalonga in nassau sound is dead in the water project wize --state cites --"aquatic preserve zone area" thus no permit allowed there --(never mind they let the corp of enginneers --do beach renourishment -- pumping sand from the bottom onto the beach (uh they also disallowed metal detecting on the park beaches there just in case they pumped up some treasure by accident )

last but not least the Concepcion MAY have been found off melborne , fla by rex stocker's group---( if so that means the all the 1715 fleet wrecks are either all "under controll of people or off limits")

of course there are many many more wrecks of value still out there finding them is one thing --getting the legal permits to harvest them is another

thats all the info -- I'll give away for free

[signumops]

Santini:
Boats are already digging in 30 feet of water at the 1715 sites... not many but some, and it works. The Virg has dug in 40 foot depths, and there are some pretty big dig boats out there that could easily dig in 50 feet of water effectively.

There is a 1715 boat that may be a separate ship that is in a common area not under contract, amid the zone you specified.

One of the near-shore wrecks in the 1715 lease areas could easily be mistaken for a 1715 fleet ship, but it may not be: in fact there are several of these wrecks that have not been excavated sufficiently to identify them.

The honeypots from Sebastian to Douglas beach are pretty much empty unless you have some way to work in 4 feet of water or less (this was done with Fisher's GoldDigger previously with serious returns, however, that was when nobody lived on the shore).
Now, you are bound to upset somebody when you get too close to shore as its difficult to find a portion of beach not occuppied as was the case back in the late 60's.

The solution to deeper finds may be hinged upon your understanding of whether the fleet was pushed shoreward from the north or from the south.

The new lease holders (Brisbens) issue sub-contracts, or at least they did in 2010. I hear there are going to be new terms in 2011.

Lastly, all of these issues are not new to this forum and quite a bit of postulation has already occurred over the last 10 years or so, at the very least, best as I can recall.

[billinstuart]

Alot seems to hinge on "ballast" piles with the state. I've personally gotta ballast rock that washed up on the beach. I've read accounts of ballast rocks being found inland.

2 thoughts: 1) They weren't carrying any ballast..they had too much treasure, and were waterlogged from waiting for 12 years. Didn't need, nor want, any ballast on the ships 2) what few ballast stones were carried were salvaged or washed ashore.

[ivan salis]

most of the time on smaller FRIGATILLA type vessels ballast rocks was generally only carried for weight for when they did not have enought "paying" cargo to properly balance out thier vessels --- stop and think would want to carry dead weight non paying ballast rocks --if you had paying cargo that you could use instead for "weight" ?-- duh thats a no brainer !!! common sense says for you to load paying cargo over useless rocks . and since there was a HUGE back load of cargo waiting tio be shipped, there was lots of cargo awaiting shipment to spain to be had .

on larger type NAO TYPE vessels sure theres "ballast plies" to be found -- but maybe not so much on the smaller FRIGATILLA TYPES vessels

[billinstuart]

Thanks Ivan! seems the state puts a high priority on "ballast piles" as proof. My opinion..there are wrecks with NO ballast piles. 1715 wrecks MAY have been found recently, but the valuables have been thoroughly recovered previously. The Spanish, and others, realized centuries ago that there was value in those wrecks.