** Lost Gold At The Dead Man's Mine ** A Miners Journal **

[GhostMiner]

Just now, DOOGY-MD said:

Oh yes, no question, I would have loved to work with them!!

Me too but I couldn't keep up with Jed as far as drinking or working LOL.

[DOOGY-MD]

Yur right, to old for that stuff now, would be in the emergency ward, but could be a job supervisor or gold weigher for sure!

Hehehe 😊...

[GhostMiner]

16 minutes ago, DOOGY-MD said:

Yur right, to old for that stuff now, would be in the emergency ward, but could be a job supervisor or gold weigher for sure!

Hehehe 😊...

From reading Jed's journal it seems like he loved his whiskey as much as the gold. 

[DOOGY-MD]

Would you know how old Jed was in 1936?

[Jim_Alaska]

2 hours ago, GhostMiner said:

Interesting. I think they hauled whatever fit in the bucket to the longtom but I think John only washed off the bigger rocks from the buckets into the sluice head and didn't send them through. Of course that is speculation on my part but it seems logical. As far as where they worked at the creek we have an approximate location and have dug the area with pick and shovel and got decent gold. As there is nearly no gold elsewhere along the creek I think this may be the spot. Here is a picture of what we have found there. It's around 4 grams to the cubic yard of gravel. The creek has changed course a bit since 1936.

 

 

I understand that they brushed off the rocks too large to go in the bucket. He doesn't say anything about washing off large rocks in the sluice. But, anything of a size to fit in the bucket, and even smaller, like the size of a baseball, is going to result in lost gold.

Classification is king in this game, no classification = poor recovery.

If what you got out of the creek is any indication, they lost a lot of gold that size and especially smaller.

[GhostMiner]

14 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 

I understand that they brushed off the rocks too large to go in the bucket. He doesn't say anything about washing off large rocks in the sluice. But, anything of a size to fit in the bucket, and even smaller, like the size of a baseball, is going to result in lost gold.

Classification is king in this game, no classification = poor recovery.

If what you got out of the creek is any indication, they lost a lot of gold that size and especially smaller.

True. But I think if I go back in the journal he talked about the grizzly on top of the sluice that they fed gravels into. I think he said it was 2 inches but I will have to find it again. Maybe it was larger. If that is correct then nothing went through the sluice larger than that and they just washed bigger rock above the grizzly. 

[GhostMiner]

1 hour ago, DOOGY-MD said:

Would you know how old Jed was in 1936?

No, there was no mention of his name in the journal or the report. I've always pictured him in his late 30's or early 40's but who knows for sure.

[GhostMiner]

22 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 

I understand that they brushed off the rocks too large to go in the bucket. He doesn't say anything about washing off large rocks in the sluice. But, anything of a size to fit in the bucket, and even smaller, like the size of a baseball, is going to result in lost gold.

Classification is king in this game, no classification = poor recovery.

If what you got out of the creek is any indication, they lost a lot of gold that size and especially smaller.

Even if the griz was 4 inches it was still allowing too large a rock or gravel into the sluice. No doubt they lost a lot of gold.

[flakmagnet]

If the grizzly was 4 inches, that sounds like a pretty large Tom.
If it was a large one, the gold recovery would be better...

Either way they're getting an unworldly amount of gold out of that kettle.

[GhostMiner]

2 minutes ago, flakmagnet said:

If the grizzly was 4 inches, that sounds like a pretty large Tom.
If it was a large one, the gold recovery would be better...

Either way they're getting an unworldly amount of gold out of that kettle.

2 ft X 20 ft I think.