Secrets of the Lost Confederate Gold = As told by the talking Trees.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #41
Franklin. How about some pics of the 1830's through 1887 carvings?
The pics are in the book. As for the 1830's they are graffiti. The treasures are real and the maps are real. There are 58 Maps to 58 CSA and KGC depositories. There is also about 150 locations of KGC Depositories out west. They have such letters as "CDX" for Confederate Depository Location. Sometimes one word or one letter is used two, three and four different ways. The Tree has General Breckenridges name upside down and 2 depositories belonging to him or under his name. There are 10 depositories under President Jefferson Davis. They placed Maps in 8 different graves with a 9th grave that has all 58 Maps. That is all I can tell for right now. I am getting ready to recover some treasure soon.
 

BennyV

Full Member
Feb 22, 2021
215
280
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
The pics are in the book. As for the 1830's they are graffiti. The treasures are real and the maps are real. There are 58 Maps to 58 CSA and KGC depositories. There is also about 150 locations of KGC Depositories out west. They have such letters as "CDX" for Confederate Depository Location. Sometimes one word or one letter is used two, three and four different ways. The Tree has General Breckenridges name upside down and 2 depositories belonging to him or under his name. There are 10 depositories under President Jefferson Davis. They placed Maps in 8 different graves with a 9th grave that has all 58 Maps. That is all I can tell for right now. I am getting ready to recover some treasure soon.
Where can I buy the book?
 

Treasure_Hunter

Administrator
Staff member
Jul 27, 2006
44,630
45,232
Florida
Detector(s) used
Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
The books are on LuLu at the present. Within a couple weeks or so they will be on Amazon and Kindle.
Franklin, you need to become a charter member if you are going to advertise your books.
 
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #44
Franklin, you need to become a charter member if you are going to advertise your books.
Sorry was just answering BennyV's question. If not right take it down please.
 

Treasure_Hunter

Administrator
Staff member
Jul 27, 2006
44,630
45,232
Florida
Detector(s) used
Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Sorry was just answering BennyV's question. If not right take it down please.
Not a problem, if you want to advertise your book here just become a charter member, it's only $20.00 a year.
 

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Franklin, i am sincere and not doing this to discredit any of the hard and dedicated work you have put in. I am doing it to help with historical accuracy and make your research and documentation of history even more precise and accurate and hope you will look on it with an open mind as it is intended.

I was able to find further aerial photo's that clearly document it's rapid growth from a young tree in 1955 to it's present state. I have a few series of photo's to present, so bare with me as i post them up.

First, i referenced the exact position of the Beech Tree in question, using fixed markers, those being the stone walls, and the corner of the street to ensure we were tracking the same tree throughout its growth:

Click to enlarge:

beechfinal3.jpg


How do we know this is the correct tree, by looking at ground and aerial photo's, we were able to determine how many grave stones from the North and East wall it sits. We know that it is 8-9 stones from the East wall and 17-18 back from the North Wall:

Looking south standing at the North Wall. Click to enlarge:

beechdistance.jpg



Looking North towards the North Wall. Click to enlarge:

beechdistance2.jpg


And finally, approximate 17-18 rows back from this March 2012 aerial (leaves aren't out yet on the Beech):
Click to enlarge:


distance 3.jpg
 
Last edited:

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Now these pictures have me scratching my head, how can this be, even i admit that tree calculators estimate it at 200+ years old based on your reported 133 inch circumference?!!! But pictures don't lie, so i had to dig deeper and found this:

We have to HALF the age of tree calculators on non wild trees, in pertinent part: "For younger street and landscape trees, pick a genus or species from above and reduce the Growth Rate Factor by half." https://www.treehugger.com/estimating-forest-trees-age-134

As it turns out when trees don't have to compete for sun, water and nutrients, they can grow twice as fast. So now our tree is nearing a 100 years old. But that doesn't satisfy, and i dug deeper to find other ways to cross check and build several layers of confirmation.

Another way we can check is by Height estimation. Several views of the tree from the ground reveal it's approximately 40-60ft in height. (I base this on my experience as a logger in my early 20's, as well as google earth measuring tools which do have a margin of error hence my range of 20 ft).

So here the chart shows us its 80-100 years old based on its height. Yet again consistent with our aerial photo evidence. (note these are for great lakes area, but that actually favors us as they grow faster farther south)
Click to enlarge:

beechheightage.jpg

And lastly, another way to date it based on its diameter (reported 42 inches) is through growth rings. Turns out they did a study on beech trees and when they were cleared around so they didn't have competition their growth rings increased in width up to .300 inch! Growth rings are a factor of 2, as the growth ring is on the other side too, giving us a .600 per year diameter growth rate. In pertinent part: https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/misc/ag_654/volume_2/fagus/grandifolia.htm

So given our previous estimates of 80 years old, 80 x .600 inches growth per year = 48" diameter, which is almost spot on your measurement of 44" diameter!

In conclusion, height, diameter, growth, comparison and aerial photo evidence all cross confirm the trees age in the 80-100 year old range.


How to measure ring growth width:

beechmeasure.jpg
 
Last edited:

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
And lastly, we can estimate age by comparing to other Beech tree sizes that are estimated to be 200-300 years old. You can see that these trees are a good 3-4 times the girth of our tree in question. If one wants an easy exercise in how big trees can get just from 1950, go into any post WWII neighborhood built in the housing boom of the late 1940's and Early 50's and look at the trees planted in the boulevards and curb strips, some of the original ones are huge now!

TN American Beech Tree:

beechsidebyside.jpg




Maryland Beech 200-300yr old:
beechmaryland.jpg


Beech PA 200-300 year old:

beechPA.jpg
 
Last edited:

Signman

Jr. Member
Feb 14, 2019
22
43
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Why would they put clues on a tree? An item that may be cut down and used for firewood by an uniformed person.
They did mark trees with the information to find the treasure. The understanding of the carvings and how they relate to the layout is no simple matter. But you are correct, the trees could be destroyed by fire, flood, hurricanes, or just die and they knew it. They put markers underground that also provide a cryptic way of giving the same information that the carvings give. The map tree shows this location.
 
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #50
They did mark trees with the information to find the treasure. The understanding of the carvings and how they relate to the layout is no simple matter. But you are correct, the trees could be destroyed by fire, flood, hurricanes, or just die and they knew it. They put markers underground that also provide a cryptic way of giving the same information that the carvings give. The map tree shows this location.
Yes and they had a total of eight trees in the surrounding areas and everyone of these trees gave exact distance and compass readings to this Master tree and it's exact location should something ever happen to the Master tree. One of those eight trees is now gone and another is severely damaged high up. Also if the beech tree is not over 80 years old explain to me how Dr. George Washington Dame carved most of this when he died in the 1880's. Also Paymaster James Semple that married the daughter of President John Tyler how did he carve on this same tree about President John Tyler's wife that he was visiting at the Astoria Hotel in New York?
 

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
. Also if the beech tree is not over 80 years old explain to me how Dr. George Washington Dame carved most of this when he died in the 1880's. Also Paymaster James Semple that married the daughter of President John Tyler how did he carve on this same tree about President John Tyler's wife that he was visiting at the Astoria Hotel in New York?

That's simple, they didn't and couldn't have marked this particular tree, unless they were still alive in the 1950's or there about. Having spent a significant part of my career in Law Enforcement, I try to let the evidence form the narrative, not the other way around.

First, with clear and convincing evidence, we've established that tree is no more than 100 years old, likely closer to 80 years old given the aerial photos, which from an evidentiary standpoint, are the strongest and most credible evidence one can obtain. We crossed checked the photo dating with Height, circumference and ring dating estimations as well as with comparative photo's of known 200-300 year old beech trees.

If other credible evidence exists elsewhere that these two chararcters carved a tree in that Cemetery at some point in the 1800's, we then need to look for other evidence to explain where it may have gone such as historical records from the groundkeepers about tree's that may have been blown over, died, stuck by lightening or removed for other reasons at some point in the late 1800's or early 1900's.

We could also look through any local county or state archives for old photo's of the cemetery in the later 1800's and early 1900's that show some of the original trees that existed in that cemetery and maybe if we're really lucky, even find some of carvings in trees that people found interesting at the time.

Have to keep diggin', thats part of the thrill of investigating!
 
Last edited:

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Franklin, here's yet more evidence that helps to explain just how fast trees can grow in this cemetery, we can date this huge tree to under 100 years old.

- First photo, dated 1995, see huge tree right near the corner of the house at the North Gate.

- Second Photo, from a RPPC at the North Gate House, approximately 1910, that huge tree does not exist and conversely, a pine tree that existed there in 1910, is no longer there.

- Third photo, street view, 2018, this huge tree no longer exits, so we can narrow its existence between 1910 and 2018 thus narrowing it's possible age to a 100 years old or less when it was removed.

beechgate2.jpg



beechgate3.jpg

beechgate4.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #53
Franklin, here's yet more evidence that helps to explain just how fast trees can grow in this cemetery, we can date this huge tree to under 100 years old.

- First photo, dated 1995, see huge tree right near the corner of the house at the North Gate.

- Second Photo, from a RPPC at the North Gate House, approximately 1910, that huge tree does not exist and conversely, a pine tree that existed there in 1910, is no longer there.

- Third photo, street view, 2018, this huge tree no longer exits, so we can narrow its existence between 1910 and 2018 thus narrowing it's possible age to a 100 years old or less when it was removed.

View attachment 1994340


View attachment 1994343
View attachment 1994344
First of all this does not prove anything. The tree near the building you claim as proof is not a beech tree it is a Penn Oak. Grow at different rates. Second you are saying the age of beech trees are different from what I posted as to the diameter and the age. I proved to you the beech tree is over 252 years old. No matter how many photos or actually bad photos you post you can not determine the age of this tree any other way than to cut it down and count the tree rings.
Now take the girth of the beech tree in Danville, Va. which is 132 measuring up 4ft from the roots multiply that by 6 equals to 252 years. With dry years that number of years can increase. So my estimate of 335 years is not too far off. Your age of 80 years is for a tree that is beech tree of less than 14 inches in diameter and a girth of 44 inches.

I also have a photograph of a beech tree that is smaller than the one in Danville. It has a Confederate Flag carved on it and the Date 1867. I guess according to you this did not happen either.
 
Last edited:

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Now take the girth of the beech tree in Danville, Va. which is 132 measuring up 4ft from the roots multiply that by 6 equals to 252 years. With dry years that number of years can increase. So my estimate of 335 years is not too far off. Your age of 80 years is for a tree that is beech tree of less than 14 inches in diameter and a girth of 44 inches.

You are completely ignoring that we crossed checked it's age in multiple ways (6 different ways we've now estimated it's age and all confirm each other that it is 80-100 years old), you are only pointing to the circumference estimator and not halfing it as the estimator instructions say to on non wild growing trees.

- Circumference estimators are for trees growing in the wild. Tree's that are in cemeteries, boulevards, curb strips etc grow at twice the rate, so right off the bat, you need to half that number. Also, you can't add extra years for drought as the estimators already factor in the average growth rate over its lifespan, wet and dry years included.

- We also crossed checked the age by a height estimator which comes in at 80-100 years old.

-We also crossed checked it by ring growth age estimators on beech trees and again come up with 80-100 years old

-We then also cross checked it with aerial photo's, which leave no doubt that in 1955 it was a mere sapling.

-We also compared it to known beech trees that are in the 200-300 year old range and their girth is easily 3-5 times as much as this tree.

- And now we've also cross checked its age compared to the Pin Oak knowing their respective growth rates..

The tree near the building you claim as proof is not a beech tree it is a Penn Oak. Grow at different rates.

- "Penn Oak Grow at different rates" EXACTLY, never have truer words been spoken and luckily for us, arborists have extensively documented their different growth rates so we can accurately compare! Math is our friend!

In pertinent part:

- Pin Oak Species - 3.0 Growth Factor

- American Beech Tree - 6.0 Growth Factor

So with this we know that a Pin Oak grows at TWICE the rate of a Beech (growth factor is inverse, smaller numbers grow faster).

Given that, we would expect that the PIN Oak, of a similar age to the Beech, would be at least twice the circumference, which we find to be true! And knowing that we've definitively estimated the oak at no more than 100 years old, we can easily and accurately estimate that the Beech is a similar or younger age.

Here is the Pin Oak vs the Beech tree, i even found pictures taken from a similar distance to help gauge circumference and there is no doubt the Oak is at least twice the circumference which allows us to yet again estimate the age of the Beech at under 100 years old.

Click to enlarge:

beechsidebyside2.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #55
You are completely ignoring that we crossed checked it's age in multiple ways, you are only pointing to the circumference estimator and not halfing it as the estimator instructions say to on non wild growing trees.

- Circumference estimators are for trees growing in the wild. Tree's that are in cemeteries, boulevards, curb strips etc grow at twice the rate, so right off the bat, you need to half that number. Also, you can't add extra years for drought as the estimators already factor in the average growth rate over its lifespan, wet and dry years included.

- We also crossed check the age by a height estimator which comes in at 80-100 years old.

-We also crossed checked it by ring growth age estimators on beech trees and again come up with 80-100 years old

-We then also cross checked it with aerial photo's, which leave no doubt that in 1955 it was a mere sapling.

-We also compared it to known beech trees that are in the 200-300 year old range and their girth is easily 3-5 times as much as this tree.




- "Penn Oak Grow at different rates" EXACTLY, never have truer words been spoken and luckily for us, arborists have extensively documented their different growth rates so we can accurately compare! Math is our friend!

In pertinent part:

- Pin Oak Species - 3.0 Growth Factor

- American Beech Tree - 6.0 Growth Factor

So with this we know that a Pin Oak grows at TWICE the rate of a Beech (growth factor is inverse, smaller numbers grow faster).

Given that, we would expect that the PIN Oak, of a similar age to the Beech, would be at least twice the circumference, which we find to be true! And knowing that we've definitively estimated the oak at no more than 100 years old, we can easily and accurately estimate that the Beech is a similar or younger age.

Here we can see that our Pin Oak, which grows at twice the rate of the Beech tree, is easily 2 times the circumference (if not more), then our Beech tree, i even found pictures taken from a similar distance to help gauge.

Click to enlarge:

View attachment 1994374
I will leave us there you claim to be right and I claim to be right No more arguing.
 

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I will leave us there you claim to be right and I claim to be right No more arguing.
It's all good my Friend! I hope you've found my research interesting and helpful!
 
Last edited:

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Frankin, I think i've figured out another reason for why you are thinking your beech is way older than it is. Perhaps it's just an honest mistake of conflating this trees size with some of your other beech's youve measured. You mentioned a few times now that you measured this tree at 132" circumference. I was scratching my head because we have some clear close pictures and i used to work as a logger in my early 20's and my experience told me that a tree that is 132" is one honker of a huge tree, which this beech isn't.

So i went out into my yard and found a conifer tree about the same size as your beech and photo'd at approximately the same distance to minimize photo distortion and it measures 83", a full 52" less than your beech when it is approximately the same size.

Now, keep in mind that's just a photo estimate, so i set out to confirm it by seeking out an undisputedly larger tree then your beech tree and found an old red oak in my pasture and it measures only 110", a full 22" less than your beech, which of course is impossible for it (the oak) to be smaller, even taking into account any photo distortion.

So we can estimate your tree's diameter by comparing to other confirmed and measured samples and we can confidently conclude within a small percentage of error, that your tree is probably closer to the 80" range.

Similar sized Conifer 83" circumference, Click to Enlarge:

beechvsconifer.jpg


Larger Oak, 110" circumference. Click to Enlarge:
beechvsoak1.jpg


Oak Circumference:
beechvoak2.jpg


View of the Oak and Beech at approximately 50 yards to give a better perspective of how much larger the oak is:

beechvsoak4.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #58
Frankin, I think i've figured out another reason for why you are thinking your beech is way older than it is. Perhaps it's just an honest mistake of conflating this trees size with some of your other beech's youve measured. You mentioned a few times now that you measured this tree at 132" circumference. I was scratching my head because we have some clear close pictures and i used to work as a logger in my early 20's and my experience told me that was way too large.

So i went out into my yard and found a conifer tree about the same size as your beech and photo'd at approximately the same distance to minimize photo distortion and it measures 83", a full 52" less than your beech when it is approximately the same size.

Now, keep in mind that's just a photo estimate, so i set out to confirm it by seeking out an undisputedly larger tree then your beech tree and found an old red oak in my pasture and it measures only 110", a full 22" less than your beech, which of course is impossible for it (the oak) to be smaller, even taking into account any photo distortion.

So we can estimate your tree's diameter by comparing to other confirmed and measured samples and we can confidently conclude within a small percentage of error, that your tree is probably closer to the 80" range.

Similar sized Conifer 83" circumference, Click to Enlarge:

View attachment 1994421

Larger Oak, 110" circumference. Click to Enlarge:
View attachment 1994419

Oak Circumference:
View attachment 1994420

View of the Oak and Beech at approximately 50 yards to give a better perspective of how much larger the oak is:

View attachment 1994425
Photos taken at different distance distorts the size of the trees and the age. Not accurate that way. I am telling you by ruler that was the measurements. If you disagree go to Danville and measure the tree for yourself. As I said before age of the tree has nothing to do with what is on the tree. Treasure is treasure no matter what year it was placed on the tree. I am going by the dates on the tree, May 4, 1863 and other dates even older. And the people that carved on the tree. Reverend George Washington Dame and the Undertaker marked every head stone in that cemetery with planks before the stones were ever placed on them after 1867 when the US Government took over ownership. No way would anyone else know about the "Great Rose" but James Semple. He had caches all over the East Coast to continue the Civil War even into Canada.
Trees Overlaid on Google Earth.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
F

franklin

Silver Member
Jun 1, 2012
4,928
7,070
Detector(s) used
Garrett ADS-7X, Fisher Two Box M-Scope, Mother Lode Locator, Dowsing Model 20 Electroscope, White's TM808, White's TM900, Inground Scanners
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #59
Photos taken at different distance distorts the size of the trees and the age. Not accurate that way. I am telling you by ruler that was the measurements. If you disagree go to Danville and measure the tree for yourself. As I said before age of the tree has nothing to do with what is on the tree. Treasure is treasure no matter what year it was placed on the tree. I am going by the dates on the tree, May 4, 1863 and other dates even older. And the people that carved on the tree. Reverend George Washington Dame and the Undertaker marked every head stone in that cemetery with planks before the stones were ever placed on them after 1867 when the US Government took over ownership. No way would anyone else know about the "Great Rose" but James Semple. He had caches all over the East Coast to continue the Civil War even into Canada. View attachment 1994513
Trees overlaid with photography and different distances anything is possible but when you used the same distance you can very well see the difference.
 

GoDeep

Bronze Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,849
3,845
Detector(s) used
Whites, Garrett, Minelab
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Photos taken at different distance distorts the size of the trees and the age. Not accurate that way. I am telling you by ruler that was the measurements. If you disagree go to Danville and measure the tree for yourself. As I said before age of the tree has nothing to do with what is on the tree. Treasure is treasure no matter what year it was placed on the tree. I am going by the dates on the tree, May 4, 1863 and other dates even older. And the people that carved on the tree. Reverend George Washington Dame and the Undertaker marked every head stone in that cemetery with planks before the stones were ever placed on them after 1867 when the US Government took over ownership. No way would anyone else know about the "Great Rose" but James Semple. He had caches all over the East Coast to continue the Civil War even into Canada. View attachment 1994513

Respectfully, that isn't a one to one overlay you did up, the branch coming out on the right side of your beech is now literally as large, if not larger then this large oaks main trunk so either the oak was significantly shrunk or the beech tree significantly enlarged when overlayed.

Conversely, the mans head under the beech tree's branch in your overlay shows that beech has been blown up a good factor of 4 as in the unedited photo, his head is just about the same size as the branch yet now the branch is a good 4 times as wide as his head in your overlay.

I took my photo's approximately 10 feet from the trunks of both trees, which is about exactly what the original beech tree picture with the man was taken from and i laid them side by side, no blowing up or shrinking of either. Literally, any margin of error is so small as to be insignificant.

Click to enlarge:

beechbranch.jpg


Here i overlayed the two pictures one, right above the other, no reducing or enlarging of either. I realize this is only an approximation and not perfect by any means, but we can tell that all 3 of these pictures (my oak, my pine and your beech) were all taken from about 10-15 away so the margin of error is literally only inches.

beechoverlay3.jpg


beechoverlay2.jpg


And lastly, so that we can ascertain that i didn't shrink or blow up either of my photo's relative to each other, here is the 83" Pine under the 110" oak:

beechoverlay4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top