The Treasure of Captain William Kidd.

[Randawg72]

According to 'Wiki', Henry Avery disappeared in June of 1696. Before Kidd had ever left New York. I've never read or heard of any reference that Kidd (or his wife Sarah) had ever met Mr Avery. And since Kidd was on a pirate hunting mission, why didn't he just arrest Avery and collect the King's reward for his capture?

"Simple explanation says you, ..Over complicated and highly unlikely says I"..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bocaj]

According to 'Wiki', Henry Avery disappeared in June of 1696. Before Kidd had ever left New York. I've never read or heard of any reference that Kidd (or his wife Sarah) had ever met Mr Avery.

Sure they would publish that for everyone to know! Well it would not help him in his defense so he or Sarah had absolute no inclination to make any association with a known pirate public and certainly not with the most wanted one!

And since Kidd was on a pirate hunting mission, why didn't he just arrest Avery and collect the King's reward for his capture?

Because he probably didn't even met him but his only his wife - good luck with her arresting him. And then of course there is some treasure of around 400 000£! The reward for his capture? 500£! Take your pick!

"Simple explanation says you, ..Over complicated and highly unlikely says I".. View attachment 2201990

If you find something more simple that explains those maps I am all ear!

 

[Randawg72]

To recap post #395, A guy facing criminal charges simply hid his money in a cave. He drew the maps to use as a potential bargaining chip, or in the hopes that his wife might someday find his savings.

Just like the moon landing, or the Kennedy assassination. Humans love to choose conspiracies and controversy over the simple truth. When Kidd's treasure is eventually found, people will still scream "It's not real!, it's a Hoax!" And that's OK with me. I was raised to believe in foolish miracles.

 

[Bocaj]

To recap post #395, A guy facing criminal charges simply hid his money in a cave.
He drew the maps to use as a potential bargaining chip, or in the hopes that his wife might someday find his savings.

The point is that there was nothing simple about 'this guy' or his expedition!
for starters:

• he was not the typical criminal (pirate) but a respected retired privateer and part of New York's upper class
• The backers of this expedition were the most powerful British politicians after the King
• 100 000 £ was a lot of money: valued at 100 million £ today but in terms of economic power in a much smaller economy it was comparable with at least 100 billion £ today!
• His Wife was a quite wealthy widow not in need of money.
• He was declared (together with Avery!) "enemy of all mankind" - only comparable with the most wanted terrorist these days
• He was a pawn in an historic power struggle between Whigs and Tories offering urgently needed money to raise an army to protect England of a French/Jacobite invasion

I could go on and on to explain the complexity of the case and the improbability of the simple solution you suggest.

Just like the moon landing, or the Kennedy assassination. Humans love to choose conspiracies and controversy over the simple truth.

I prefer simple theories above more complex ones but only if they equally can explain the known facts otherwise we would still teach that thunder and lightening comes from an angry god swinging his hammer!

When Kidd's treasure is eventually found, people will still scream "It's not real!, it's a Hoax!" And that's OK with me. I was raised to believe in foolish miracles.

I go with the facts and to keep a healthy distance to 'believes'. Which I recommend to anyone looking for treasure but especially this one!

You will never convince believers with facts because both things are basically exclusive. The existence of paradoxes are what makes believers so fanatic in the first place!

 

[Randawg72]

• 100 000 £ was a lot of money: valued at 100 million £ today but in terms of economic power in a much smaller economy it was comparable with at least 100 billion £ today!

You say that you "go with the facts", yet repeatedly prove you do not. According to The Bank of England's 'Inflation calculator', £100,000 in 1698 would equate to approx. £14,633,591.39 as of Feb. 2025.

 

[Bocaj]

You say that you "go with the facts", yet repeatedly prove you do not. According to The Bank of England's 'Inflation calculator', £100,000 in 1698 would equate to approx. £14,633,591.39 as of Feb. 2025.

Difficult to calculate, mostly inflation is generally calculated from living costs. If you take the value of precious metals and stones then it tells a different story and 100 m £ would be more or less the amount of the buried treasure. I did calculate it also using the size of the three chests listened in both 'Avery the Pirate' letters assuming they are filled with mostly gold.

Governments do not like to measure inflation in relation to the gold price but in our case at least it give a much higher result then that calculator (about 7x)

I did look it up - today gold price is 2 438£/oz in 1700 it was 4.35£/oz so it would be efficiently 56 m £ if we only speak of gold but precious stones have a much higher value today so 100 m £ is a realistic assumption.

So my assumption is at least much closer then yours (100 vs 56 vs 14 m£) so next time get your facts right before your boost your "proves" around!

And as I mentioned the relative value in terms of economic and political power of such treasure would have been even 1000x higher at least. It is a guess but I would assume that the founding capital of the Bank of England in 1694 was not very much higher than 100 000£ - actually 1.2m£. If Kidd's family would had invested that money they would own 8% of the Bank of England - just imagine the value of that investment today! To give you an Idea how much money in relation to one of the most powerful nations of the world in the end of the 17th century we speak of!

 

[Randawg72]

100 m £ would be more or less the amount of the buried treasure. I did calculate it also using the size of the three chests listened in both 'Avery the Pirate' letters assuming they are filled with mostly gold.

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the £100,000 treasure hidden by Captain Kidd? You even say "100 000 £ was a lot of money". If you are adding Avery's 'three chests' of treasure to the mix, then you have changed the topic mid conversation.

Governments do not like to measure inflation in relation to the gold price but in our case at least it give a much higher result then that calculator (about 7x)

I did look it up - today gold price is 2 438£/oz in 1700 it was 4.35£/oz so it would be efficiently 56 m £ if we only speak of gold but precious stones have a much higher value today so 100 m £ is a realistic assumption.

We seem to have a different understanding of the word "facts". When comparing 100,000 British pounds' economic value in the 17th century versus today's money, you don't add in modern intrinsic or historical value. (Well at least you reduced your estimate from a ludicrous 100 Billion to 100 million!)

 

[TORRERO]

I have a great interest in the treasure "Lodged" by Captain Kidd. I believe the treasure exists, and that the "Kidd/Palmer" charts are authentic, and I do Not believe the treasure is located anywhere near the America's nor the China Sea. I may (or may not) have solved some of the clues in this 328 year old mystery, and am interested in the opinions and input of like minded treasure hunters.

View attachment 2179722

The New Mel Fisher !!

 

[Bocaj]

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the £100,000 treasure hidden by Captain Kidd? You even say "100 000 £ was a lot of money". If you are adding Avery's 'three chests' of treasure to the mix, then you have changed the topic mid conversation.

I thought you did read my previous post! I always mentioned my idea that Kidd's tresure was really Avery's so it doesn't change anything. Kidd was tasked to rob the robbers so to speak. KIdd having encountered Avery's treasure is at least a possibility.

We seem to have a different understanding of the word "facts". When comparing 100,000 British pounds' economic value in the 17th century versus today's money, you don't add in modern intrinsic or historical value. (Well at least you reduced your estimate from a ludicrous 100 Billion to 100 million!)

I didn't reduce anything - 100m£ is the pure material value the treasure would be worth now if you melted the gold and sold the precious stones. If you sell it by pieces on the antiquity market you could probably fetch a 5 to 10x higher price.

As a political instrument in that time the treasure could be measured in 100 billion £ today. You probably misunderstood what I mean with it. Of course the treasure has not that value today but in the 17th century it would be almost 10% of the capital of the Bank of England's initial capital. The King itself did own less then 1% (10 000£ was the maximum allowed share). This money in the hand of a single owner would make that person very influential. Think Gate, Musk etc and you get the idea how much 100 000£ was worth in that day!

Of course Britain's economy was much much smaller those days but also there was much less gold available and gold and silver were still the only money available. That makes the possession of gold much more desirable that in today's world of fiat money. if somehow the financial market crashes and paper/cc/bank accounts have no value at all then this treasure could easy be worth 100billion again!

 

[Randawg72]

The New Mel Fisher !!

Thank you but not quite. I am only a treasure hunter, Mel was a treasure finder.
After 400 or 500 million dollars or so, the Fisher family is still recovering treasure
from the Atocha.

 

[achanceforgold]

Thank you but not quite. I am only a treasure hunter, Mel was a treasure finder.
After 400 or 500 million dollars or so, the Fisher family is still recovering treasure
from the Atocha.

Keep going sir. I hope you find it.

 

[Randawg72]

Keep going sir. I hope you find it.

Thank you acfg,
I hope so too!..

 

[BennyV]

100,000 pounds in 1698 (gold 4.23L per oz) is about 23,640 ounces of gold. About 671kgs. That’s a lot of gold. Figure 5x to 10x if it’s in old bars and/or coins with historical and potential numismatic value.

$71 million current value at melt on 671kgs.

$355-710 million ain’t bad lol

 

[Bocaj]

100,000 pounds in 1698 (gold 4.23L per oz) is about 23,640 ounces of gold. About 671kgs. That’s a lot of gold. Figure 5x to 10x if it’s in old bars and/or coins with historical and potential numismatic value.

$71 million current value at melt on 671kgs.

$355-710 million ain’t bad lol

To be honest the 5x to 10x is rather a guess of someone who is not that much qualified to give an opinion on antique coins value (me). I hope someone better experienced here can correct this figure if I am wrong.

Also I estimate the value of precious stones to at least 1/3 of the whole treasure. That would give 450kg gold and the rest in precious stones. Distributed over at least three chests each weighting a bit more than 150kg.

Three chests with 2ft x 1ft with about a 30% load of gold would fit it nicely and also correspondent what WK (Kidd) mentioned in the letter.

Also the three chest fit almost exact into 3x3 dugout (3ft x 3ft x four)

In any case even distributed over three chests it is still a lot of weight to carry with at least three to four people needed to carry such a weight around. For a single person impossible to handle.

The only thing that I could imagine for a quite strong person alone would be to slide it over ground from a place nearby and rebury it.

 

[ISmellGold]

Any luck finding the treasure yet?

 

[Randawg72]

I thought you did read my previous post! I always mentioned my idea that Kidd's tresure was really Avery's

I thought you were just speculating back in post #420. Opinion noted.

 

[Randawg72]

Any luck finding the treasure yet?

No ISG. ..Sniffed out any Gold yet?

 

[ISmellGold]

No ISG. ..Sniffed out any Gold yet?

Always
😁

 

[Randawg72]

To the casual reader of this thread. There are a lot of posts lately regarding the current value of Captain Kidd's treasure. The interweb says it's worth from 2.1 million to 160 million dollars. The truth is that nobody knows.
It should be noted that Kidd's treasure consists of gold, silver, precious jewels, and other things. It was Not just £100,000 worth of gold.
Also these values are all simply guesses and they do not have any bearing or relevance to its 17th century value, and therefore these estimates are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Bocaj]

To the casual reader of this thread. There are a lot of posts lately regarding the current value of Captain Kidd's treasure. The interweb says it's worth from 2.1 million to 160 million dollars. The truth is that nobody knows.
It should be noted that Kidd's treasure consists of gold, silver, precious jewels, and other things. It was Not just £100,000 worth of gold.
Also these values are all simply guesses and they do not have any bearing or relevance to its 17th century value, and therefore these estimates are irrelevant to this discussion.

Well irrelevant is a strong thing to say! Kidd was giving the figure of 100k £ not me!

Dismissing our estimates as guesses is not helpful. As most of the treasure is gold the estimates are quite realistic (with margin of error) because the gold price then now are known facts and as such the calculation is right. Please provide your own estimates if you know better.

The relative (political) value in the 17th century is important because it can help with understanding the overall story of Kidd's expedition. I can understand if you dismiss history as irrelevant in the age of satellite imagery and metal detectors but others here don't share this opinion.