A question: Which would you go after first?

[Tuberale]

Assume first you have a cache which is well documented, small area, and permission to dig at.

Which would you search first? A) A cache which has had some items already found. B) A cache where nothing has been found.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Prospector]

Ever hear the old expression "nothing succeeds like success"? Start off with some success if you wish to go
on to even bigger success; but then that is just how I would think.
Old Prospector

 

[Kentucky Kache]

That would be a pretty good problem to have. Personally, I would just want to be sure and search both places. Which one I hit first probably wouldn't matter much.

 

[Connecticut Sam]

A then B. Good luck to you.

 

[Tuberale]

Consensus to date unanimous: hunt the cache where something has already been found.

I agree. The question also arrises: has everything been found?

Before 1950's, treasure hunting was largely a hit or miss operation. People would use an iron wagon rod to probe into the ground, hoping to hit something, and then dig. Sometimes this produced treasure. Often this produced rocks or broken bottles.

A big part of my research revolves around finding reports of gold coins being found at given locations. I kept wondering why these areas were not hunting again. And again....

 

[maipenrai]

Those spots may have been hunted again and again, but you just dont know about it. Not everyone belongs to a treasure site, so how would you know if someone found more coins or not? I also have heard of finds, and I plan to check them out at some time, just to make sure nothing was left behind. Same as parks, they are never Cleaned out, detectors improve, and your hunting tecniques improve.

 

[Tuberale]

Those spots may have been hunted again and again, but you just dont know about it. Not everyone belongs to a treasure site, so how would you know if someone found more coins or not? I also have heard of finds, and I plan to check them out at some time, just to make sure nothing was left behind. Same as parks, they are never Cleaned out, detectors improve, and your hunting tecniques improve.

Follow up and rechecking where historic treasures have been located is a good hunting technique. Especially if a recovery was over 60 years old. Time was a guy went out with a wagon rod probe and stuck it in the ground hoping for a "hit". Literally "hit" or miss. But sometimes treasure was found this way. And it certainly makes sense to follow up on those finds.

Yes, there used to be more "treasure hunters", who may or may not have made recoveries. But that's why it's called treasure hunting, not treasure finding or treasure recovering.

The real question is how do you maximize your treasure finding, and minimize your treasure hunting?

The original post here has to do with my finding historical evidence of some coinage found. As the coins were gold, and no one knew where they came from, how many were there, and they were accidentally recovered, the concensus of posters to date seems to be "check again."

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I assumed you meant both sites were well documented. In such case, I would not rest until both sites were gone over and over and over and...

 

[Tuberale]

I assumed you meant both sites were well documented. In such case, I would not rest until both sites were gone over and over and over and...

I shouldn't have stated "well-documented." Both are sites where multiple gold coins were discovered at. Still don't know what, who or when.

Just two locations where recoveries had been made at. And at the price of gold coins, seriously considering searching there again. I'm not sure I would do "over and over and over..." But I am thinking of at least revisiting the sites and using deeper machines that were not available for the past 40 years or more. One site in a cattle pond that dried up most years; the other site immediately off a paved road (or under it?) at a sharp curve. If more targets under the pavement ... may just publish documentation. Sometimes you have to leave something for the future.

I don't usually hunt for a cache or even at a site until I have much better information. The one exception to that is where gold coins have already been found at, and I know the area within 1,000 square feet.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I assumed you meant both sites were well documented. In such case, I would not rest until both sites were gone over and over and over and...

I shouldn't have stated "well-documented." Both are sites where multiple gold coins were discovered at. Still don't know what, who or when.

Just two locations where recoveries had been made at. And at the price of gold coins, seriously considering searching there again. I'm not sure I would do "over and over and over..." But I am thinking of at least revisiting the sites and using deeper machines that were not available for the past 40 years or more. One site in a cattle pond that dried up most years; the other site immediately off a paved road (or under it?) at a sharp curve. If more targets under the pavement ... may just publish documentation. Sometimes you have to leave something for the future.

I don't usually hunt for a cache or even at a site until I have much better information. The one exception to that is where gold coins have already been found at, and I know the area within 1,000 square feet.

For me that would depend on the lead. If I have reason to think I'm at the right location, I want to keep looking. You have to realise that there's a lot of ground under our feet, and hidden items can be anywhere. Maybe it's just my way of thinking, but when I have a good lead, I like to milk it for all it's worth, both in research and on the ground.

 

[TheRandyMan]

I assumed you meant both sites were well documented. In such case, I would not rest until both sites were gone over and over and over and...

I shouldn't have stated "well-documented." Both are sites where multiple gold coins were discovered at. Still don't know what, who or when.

Just two locations where recoveries had been made at. And at the price of gold coins, seriously considering searching there again. I'm not sure I would do "over and over and over..." But I am thinking of at least revisiting the sites and using deeper machines that were not available for the past 40 years or more. One site in a cattle pond that dried up most years; the other site immediately off a paved road (or under it?) at a sharp curve. If more targets under the pavement ... may just publish documentation. Sometimes you have to leave something for the future.

I don't usually hunt for a cache or even at a site until I have much better information. The one exception to that is where gold coins have already been found at, and I know the area within 1,000 square feet.

 

[Connecticut Sam]

B to the first question

 

[Tuberale]

For me that would depend on the lead. If I have reason to think I'm at the right location, I want to keep looking. You have to realise that there's a lot of ground under our feet, and hidden items can be anywhere. Maybe it's just my way of thinking, but when I have a good lead, I like to milk it for all it's worth, both in research and on the ground.

I already know the exact locations where gold coins were found. I do not consider that complete research, but comfortable with WHERE.

Cache Hunting also deals with WHO, WHAT, WHEN and WHY though. I have a reference to WHO, but nothing about WHAT (except an minimal amount); WHEN (had to be before 1933 because gold coins were minted before then); or WHY (might be the recall of gold coins in 1933, but don't know that for a fact).

One of the sites I've already searched at. No treasure found, including recent coins. Did find bare box springs. Original story claimed coins were found when "clinks" were heard from a box springs dirt was being thrown on top of. It is my intention to move the box spring (over half buried at this time) to determine if any coins had been covered by dirt. I imagine the dirt has been gone thru carefully after the first coins were discovered. Don't want to "presume" anything I can't "prove", though.

 

[Frankn]

Your story keeps changing, well documented, not well documented. Items found at one sight, items found at both sites. Now you say you don't have any idea of what the original treasure is.
Go back to do more research or just go there and take pot luck.

I like to get my facts straight before I set boots on ground. I am presently looking for a cache of several iron boxes containing gold and silver coins, Jewry and silverwhere from the 1700's . I have it documented. Name, location, treasure description. The person lived in recorded history, his deed is on record. His children looked for it for several years. One of the boxes was found by accident. It contained jewels. I am in the final stage of finding the land owner to get permission to hunt. The GIS site for that area is of no help so I must go to that county and search land records at the recorders office, a time consuming job at best. I already have my 50% agreement drawn up, needing the owners signature. Frank

 

[Tuberale]

Need to read all the posts, Frankn. I think I've already answered them.

There are (rarely) times when it is only necessary to have one piece of information before searching for treasure. That would be when you already know where/what items have been found, ergo the title of this thread.

I'm off to find some treasure. Partner checked land ownership at county tax assessor's yesterday, contacted one of 2 landowners, and has signed search/salvage agreement to hunt property. Time to finish this project shortly.

Might have time to check on the 2 mentioned in this thread as well: only another 120 miles or so.

 

[Connecticut Sam]

I am wondering how treasure hunters spit up treasures with the land owner, since coins are worth differ prices.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I am wondering how treasure hunters spit up treasures with the land owner, since coins are worth differ prices.

Whatever works for both parties. You could divide the spoils, or you could agree to sell everything and split the money. Any agreement that leaves you and the land owner happy.

 

[Tuberale]

I am wondering how treasure hunters spit up treasures with the land owner, since coins are worth differ prices.

Good question, but wrong location.

Should probably start another thread with just this question, Danny.

In our case, 50/50 split with landowners/salvors. In my case, that means about 16-17% of total found, as partner has brought his wife along, and if she is present when the cache is found, she is entitled to equal amount as we are. Probably need the extra pair of eyes anyway on this project.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good afternoon. When variable value goods are found, we agree to the relative value of each, then you divide, and I get first choice unless one or more of us wishes a particular item, then there is an auction, and the winner can buy it with parts of his share, or cash which is also put into the pot for division..

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[maipenrai]

Split is 50/50, but partner brought wife along, so she gets a share too? Why dont you bring your wife and even kids along and so you will get the greatest share. Is she a detectorist and worth her percentage or is it just a way for your partner to get a larger cut?
Please keep us posted!