Random Hunting finds versus Researched finds

[Larsmed]

Hey my fellow hunters!!

I want to know .....

Do you have more quality finds from doing the research

or just by random spots to hunt?

I bring this up becasue it seems like I will go to researched areas and come up with nothing, then
other times I wonder if I shouldn't put so many hours into research and just hunt instead.

for example: You pick a wooded area that you know nothing about, its just there...
...Did you find anything valuable?

I usually wont find anything valuable unless its a park or my backyard so far.

thanks for your opinions

Larry

 

[Keppy]

Hard to say on that random hunting i found a lot on random spots . My first large cent was found on a random hunt in a wooded area. But reasearch will at times put more loot in your pocket........With me i found a lot both ways......==Jim_K==

 

[Tom_in_CA]

No, "random spot" hunting will not produce nearly as well as sites where you know people congregated (camped, lived, played, or whatever). To merely walk out to the middle of anywhere, will likely net you total silence For any metal items to have gotten there, there had to have been people-traffic.

The only exception to this might be in some very ancient historic European countries, where there was simply so many eons, people groups, villages, battles, etc... come & gone, that they can randomly hit farm fields, and find stuff. Maybe a few places like that on the east coast of the USA too, near to heavily populated and rich historical area. But here in CA (scarcely 200-ish years European influence), you would find nothing but sterile ground, unless you had some sort of lead that led you to someplace.

 

[Keppy]

No, "random spot" hunting will not produce nearly as well as sites where you know people congregated (camped, lived, played, or whatever). To merely walk out to the middle of anywhere, will likely net you total silence For any metal items to have gotten there, there had to have been people-traffic.

The only exception to this might be in some very ancient historic European countries, where there was simply so many eons, people groups, villages, battles, etc... come & gone, that they can randomly hit farm fields, and find stuff. Maybe a few places like that on the east coast of the USA too, near to heavily populated and rich historical area. But here in CA (scarcely 200-ish years European influence), you would find nothing but sterile ground, unless you had some sort of lead that led you to someplace.

Tom , My random spots are in Ohio and i don't think there is a spot in Ohio where people have not been. I have made some nice finds in just stopping some were and hunting you never know were someone has been. And i have never had total silence. Always found something .. Of course you will find things with research but i have been in the woods and found old foundations and made nice finds with no research. I found a old foundation this winter i will take the Bobcat to as soon as the weather breaks and i know i will find something. There is a lot of luck to this detecting also.................. WE ALL know that reasearch will find you more. But i have never been scunked on random hunting but then i refuse to leave untill i find something . I was in a field once for over 6 hours then found a dime and a cent . And said thank you God now i can go home..................

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jim K, you're definition of "random sites" is not "random". If you go out randomly hiking in the country-side and find a cellar hole, foundations, an out-of-place fruit tree, or any other such indication of human habitation, then in my definition, that is no longer "random". When I saw "random hunting", I took that to mean just any field or remote spot, with no regard for visual indicators showing that it was a likely spot for persons to stop, or a likely spot for a river crossing, or whatever such clues.

I too have spotted anomolies while driving down country roads, and gotten out to check them. But I don't consider that "random", because there were clues that caused me to have a suspicion that something had been there in times past. Now if I pull out my detector in the middle of nowhere, with no clues or anomolies that drew my suspicion, THAT is random ground.

 

[Lowbatts]

Yes and no Tom. Some sites here north of the Indian Boundary were long and forgotten before local histories were written. Bascially Northern Illinois got "settled" after 1832. Many of the first generation settlers built those small cabins, some fieldstone or mostly natural material that have completely been lost under the plow over the last 170 years.

So in many cases, not even familial histories recall these sites amd hunting them, while it maybe something researched to some degree, looks and feels pretty random. You usually won't know you're there until the first holed coin comes up.

You'd start with an old plat of a farm that still exists as a farm, best bet a 160 acre farm, which represents a consolidation of 4 of the original 40 acre plots taken by settlers. You've got 4 40 acre possibilities. Each of these parcels is divided up by the farmer into 10 to 20 acre plots of corn, soybean, wheat, hay or some such crop. Now you've got to pick one to hunt first, signs of the original trails or roads are slim to none. So you go by the lay of the land. Human nature being similar from one to another, where would you put a temporary home, then the first semi-permanent home?

Are you being random when making this WAG? Probably. Knowing where the old trails are gets you to nowhere either until you happen on a site that was a days travel for an ox cart or a foot traveller, as so many of the settlers here walked from NY or PA in the first days.