Clay Diggins

Yep lipca, quitclaim is the right process. A quitclaim in California is a form of grant deed.

Here is a web site with a general form for California. You would need to modify the property description area to include the stuff for a mining claim. I'm not endorsing this form or the website and I'm pretty sure the form as is isn't adequate but it might be a place to start.

As far as describing a mining claim I suggest all the following may help to define just what it is you are transferring ownership on.

1. The name of the claim
2. The BLM serial number (CAMC# in your case?)
3. The County book and page of the original Location Notice recording
4. A physical location description indicating the Meridian, Township, Range, Section, Quarter Section and County
5. The name(s) and address of the original owner and the new owner(s)

Beware. At all times you must have one association member for every 20 acres. When an association member passes the estate of the former member represents one member. If the wife is already a member of the association she can not also be the owner of the husbands portion as well as her own. Have the estate quitclaim the husbands portion of the claim and have the wife quitclaim her portion. Otherwise you may be required to reduce the claim by 20 acres.

Don't describe the interest being quitclaimed as 20 acres or any other physical portion of the claim. Just quitclaim the members interest in the claim to someone who doesn't already have an interest that would leave you with too few members to support the size of the claim.

There may be more needed. This is not legal advice just an informed opinion.

Don't forget to file a Transfer of Interest in Mining Claim with the BLM when you complete and record the quitclaims. Include a photocopy of the notarized quitclaim with the transfer notice and send the $15 filing fee along to the State BLM office..

Different States have different requirements. Transfers of mining claims are governed by State law. What works in one state is unlikely to be effective in another.

You will need to look up the laws specific to quit claiming a mining claim in your state. Several states, including Arizona, require added verbiage to avoid additional taxes and to make sure it is recorded as the proper document type.

States also control what legal description is required to describe the property bounds and documents. Generally what works in one State is unlikely to be proper for another State.

It appears that in California you also need to record a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report and provide a Assessor Parcel Number (APN).

You need to be careful to investigate the ownership and liabilities of the claim before you agree to a quitclaim. The quitclaim deed contains no warranties of title or ownership. The quitclaim only transfers to the grantee (recipient of the deed) whatever title or ownership, if any, that the grantor has at the time the deed is delivered to the grantee. If the grantor owns nothing, the grantee receives nothing. If the grantor has encumbered the claim with debt or other liabilities like mining waste cleanup or unfinished restoration work you could be buying someone else's problems.

Pig in a poke. Cat in a bag. Mining claim quitclaim.  ...You only have yourself to blame legally if you don't look into the poke, bag or actual ownership and liabilities of a mining claim.

Why depend on a magnet when you can use a battery powered phone to spot iron? 1.5 inch range too! 

Modernity. It's fun and so  ...modern!

What will science come up with next - a phone powered belt?

22 hours ago, mn90403 said:

What is the source of the toxicity?

With 120 years of extensive mining excavation on the summit the weathering of the exposed minerals is accelerated. This raises the acidity of the water draining from the peaks and affects the pH of the upper Alamosa river basin. The low pH (acid) and the elevated dissolved copper levels are the main concern. The cyanide has combined with the runoff and been neutralized years ago so it's not really a direct concern anymore.

Here's the health assessment from the EPA on the current state of the Summitville recovery project.
 

Quote

 

Human exposure to these contaminants is limited, since no one lives within 2 miles of the site nor uses the immediately surrounding groundwater for drinking. Drinking water wells for San Luis Valley residents living more than 20 miles downstream of Summitville have been sampled on numerous occasions and have never shown elevated metals concentrations associated with the site. In 1997, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released a Public Health Assessment that classified the Summitville site as no apparent public health hazard.

Ecological impacts from site contaminants are considerable, as the Alamosa River system below Summitville cannot currently support aquatic life. Studies have found potential adverse effects to agriculture and livestock from regular use of Alamosa River water. Preliminary results have indicated some uptake of metals in livestock and some agricultural soil degradation from irrigation. However, in both cases the effects haven't been of a level that affects the viability of local farm products or impacts the food chain.

The upper Alamosa basin has always had a low pH due to the naturally high mineralization in the higher elevations. Natural concentrations of valuable minerals always create an acidic environment but the erosion of the exposed mineral deposits from mining lowers the pH even more than the natural deposits would.

Due to the exposure and break down of the naturally occurring metal/sulfur compounds, in particular the exposed pyrites, this process will continue until the surface exposures reach a natural equilibrium again. Those mountain streams have always been acidic and they will remain so even after the remediation obtains the natural state again.

High acidity can be fairly easily countered by the addition of a limestone filter (usually large pieces of limestone dumped in the waterways draining from the source) the elevated dissolved copper is a little more difficult to recover. That's done at an on-site treatment plant. When the copper and other heavy metals are removed from the Summitville water they are concentrated and redeposited in the pit. The pit then drains back to the limestone beds and treatment plants again - assuring clean up work for years to come!

The BLM just raised mining claim location fees to $40.
They also raised the annual maintenance fees to $165. That $165 applies to every 20 acres on a placer claim.

These new fees take effect on September 1, 2019 at 12:01 a.m. If you have already paid your maintenance fees for the upcoming mining year you will still need to pony up the extra $10 per claim/20 acres.

The BLM is saying they will send you a notice if you owe more than you have already paid. If they don't you still need to pay so I wouldn't be waiting around for that letter in the mail, just be prepared to pay up before September 1.

This will give you an idea of how much the annual base maintenance fees per claim/size will be now.

0-20 acre placer millsite, tunnel site or lode claim = $165
20-40 acre placer claim = $330
40-60 acre placer claim = $495
60-80 acre placer claim = $660
80-100 acre placer claim = $825
100-120 acre placer claim = $990
120-140 acre placer claim = $1155
140-160 acre placer claim = $1320

If you have 10 or fewer claims you may be eligible for the small miner's waiver. The fees are the same for the annual small miner filing $15 per claim no matter what size it is as long as you complete $100 worth of work on each claim.

You can read the notice announcing these new fees in today's Federal Register.

Used to be that part of the Pima reservation in Arizona was open to prospecting with a permit under federal law. Those days are long gone.

One of the pueblos along the Rio Grande used to allow panning the river from their pay campground. I'm not sure that's still a thing but it does demonstrate that should one of the native governments choose to do so they could issue permits or even allow open prospecting. I'm not going to be holding my breath for that to happen.

All you can do is ask. Who knows maybe the council likes your face or hairdo - it could happen?

On 6/18/2019 at 10:22 AM, PG-Prospecting said:

You can swing a metal detector over an active lode claim and not be considered claim jumping correct?  

No that's not claim jumping, it's higrading.

Claim jumping is the act of trying to create a right to already claimed ground with paperwork and lawyers. Claim jumping is an old and still ongoing scam but it's been mostly stamped out in the United States. The courts in the U.S. are tough on claim jumpers. Claim jumping and the defense against it is a civil court matter in the United States.

Higrading is the act of stealing from a claim you have no right to work. Basically it's just out and out theft and is treated as mineral trespass and theft by the courts. Higrading is usually a criminal matter but it also has a civil component so the victim can sometimes choose their own legal course of action or pursue both criminal and civil penalties.

Higrading can get you jail time claim jumping, in itself, can not.

The reason detecting a mining claim is higrading is due to the fact that a mining claimant has the  exclusive right to possession of all the valuable minerals and to the possession and use of the surface as necessary to extract those minerals. (Section 3 General Mining Act) The courts, including the Supreme court, have consistently supported the right of valid claim holders to all the valuable minerals within the bounds of their valid claim whether a lode or placer claim.

The single exception within the law is the duty of a placer claimant who applies for a patent to exempt known lode deposits within the placer from their application unless they have made a lode location over their placer before applying for the patent. You will find that detailed in Section 11 of the General Mining Act. The reason for this one twist is because placer patents cost $1.25 per acre and lode claims cost $2.50 per acre. Yeah lodes are twice as expensive as placers. Without that little twist people would just make big placer claims to cover known lodes.

On 6/18/2019 at 12:43 PM, PG-Prospecting said:

Another question, in the below picture over half of the area in 21N 5E is not gridded.  What does that mean?  Had is been withdrawn from  mineral entry, and prospecting is not allowed?  Its all in National Forest land, and is not part of a Monument nor is is private land.  Also im using this area as an example, it is not an area that i am interested or has any gold or other valuable minerals.  

 

That PLSS pattern indicates that the area is unprotracted and possibly unsurveyed.

First about protraction:   When an area has not been physically surveyed and monumented in the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) imaginary lines that generally follow where the survey might be found if it were surveyed are drawn on the map. These lines are protracted by implication, there are no survey pins or monuments in place on the ground.

Protraction is useful for land descriptions but just like the PLSS grid depicted on your map protracted surveys are not to be considered geographically accurate. Since there has been no survey there is no way to know the exact position on the ground until a survey has been completed. On most maps it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a physically surveyed PLSS grid and a protracted PLSS grid.

When an area appears to be unsurveyed and unprotracted on a map it's time for some intense study as to why it's being left that way. You are right to question what appears to be an anomaly.

The area you present on your map the PLSS survey has already been completed and the "empty" areas on the PLSS grid are actually the Palovadera land grant to the north and the Santa Clara Pueblo grant to the south. These areas are Royal Spanish land grants that precede the United States and are excluded from the Public Land Survey System. In essence you should treat them as very private lands. Obviously they are off limits to prospecting and claim. Best to avoid them at all costs. No tramping about or exploring without a verified grantee to physically accompany you.

And here we come to the real first step to studying land status outside of the original 13 colonies. The PLSS grid is only the spatial reference system and will not tell you anything specific about land ownership or status. You need to dig deeper before entering any area. In this case I took what should always be the first step in finding the actual status of current or former public lands - I obtained the Master Title Plat (MTP) for that Township.

These MTP maps have nothing to do with ownership or platting of County or State parcels. Those County maps may be helpful if you are seeking permission on private lands but they have no reliable information on public lands. The MTP is the working document that federal agencies rely on to keep the current land status record. Some of the MTP maps may have been published years ago but when a portion of the public lands they depict changes the map will be replaced with a new one depicting the changes. For that reason they are the first "go to" for all government agencies and public land users when researching an area.

Since you are in New Mexico the Master Title Plat was available to you on the GLO site. It might be one or a series of maps (supplements) showing land status for that Township. Those MTP maps and their supplements are closely interrelated with the Historical Index (HI) also available on the GLO. Together the MTP and HI contain the most current status and the history of the land status for any Township. The Master Title Plats are a visual guide to that status but it's important to understand that they do not represent objects on the ground. There are no physical depictions on this map, only land status issues described by reference to the PLSS.

Not all States MTPs are available on the GLO yet. If you use the Land Matters Land Status maps you can get the very latest MTP for any given area in the western states direct from a map query. Those maps also display land ownership and management which visually delineate status features like the Santa Clara Pueblo. Having everything in one place and available with a few clicks can really cut your initial research time down. It's never fun to discover that an area you have researched for hours is actually off limits. Always study the MTP first.

There is a rather arcane shorthand to the notation on these MTPs that is fairly brief and consistent but often presents a difficult hurdle for the beginner. Land Matters has assembled a group of tutorials to help the beginner get a quick start on reading Master Title Plats. Poke around there I suggest you start with Reading Master Title Plats for an orientation and then move on to the videos etc.

Good luck. You've got a bit of work ahead of you but the payoff will be the confidence to know which lands might be open to your prospecting. If you've got more questions just put them out there.

8 hours ago, 1911Colt said:

Is there a website you can order Lidar images from?

Already covered earlier in this thread.

This NOAA website Interagency Elevation Inventory shows where, and what kind of LIDAR the U.S. government agencies have available. There are links to the mapped data downloads. Most of the green areas on the map are only about 3 foot resolution so they may or may not be an improvement on the existing DEMs.

Open Topography is another good source for free lidar data. It's more international in scope. The Tahoe Basin Lidar set is very high resolution as PG-Prospecting pointed out. It looks like there are several nice sets in New Zealand. You can directly download a selected area at this website.

You will probably notice that the coasts have some pretty good LIDAR coverage and quality but the west has been pretty much left out of the feds LIDAR efforts. It's always a good idea to check your State's GIS office to see if they have different coverage.

Not much detectable gold around Casa Grande OFS.

In Tucson the Desert Gold Diggers have several good claims to the south. You might consider calling them to see if anyone is planning a trip around that time. Typically their outings are earlier in the month. Cost to join is around $50 first year. If you are down that way much it might be worth joining just for the claims access.

Barry

2 hours ago, afreakofnature said:

You can always do a Freedom of Information Act request.  I had to do that when the USFS tried to take land away here.  They have to respond or you can take it to your senator and they will make them respond.  But i live in a red state, might be different in a blue one.

An FOIA is not really possible freak. Here's one of the parts of the Senate bill creating a new national monument.

Quote

 

SEC. 1111. Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Memorial and National Monument.

(b) Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Memorial.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary may establish a memorial at the Saint Francis Dam site in the county of Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of honoring the victims of the Saint Francis Dam disaster of March 12, 1928.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Memorial shall be—

(A) known as the “Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Memorial”; and

(B) managed by the Forest Service.

(c) Recommendations for Memorial.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress recommendations regarding—

(A) the planning, design, construction, and long-term management of the Memorial;

(B) the proposed boundaries of the Memorial;

(C) a visitor center and educational facilities at the Memorial; and

(D) ensuring public access to the Memorial.

 

So Congress is just approving a memorial, if the Secretary of Agriculture decides they want one, and letting the agencies tell them what the boundaries are "Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment". Kinda hard to run an FOIA on documents that don't exist and might not until three years from now.

The actual monument is described as "approximately 353 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled “Proposed Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Monument”. Long experience tells me that 353 acres could be 200 or 1,000 acres in the final version and that original map has nothing but a scribbled line indicating a general area that may or may not be included in the final version. The current Forest Service map shows 440 acres for the monument, not 353.

Here is the entire bill as passed by the Senate. As you will notice there are very few actions that include anything like an actual described boundary .

Most of the land management bills rolled into this one bill have made several rounds through Congress and have failed in committee or on the floor. This particular monument proposal has failed several times - the last time was in 2016.

1 hour ago, flakmagnet said:

It's appreciated that someone from Florida is posting about CA land bill changes and thanks... but unless one subscribe's to the Sun, it won't allow the article to be read. I have read numerous articles but none of them describe the new boundaries. Anyone else have the info?

It's a lot more than just California. ?

You won't find new boundaries because Congress no longer bothers to approve specific land withdrawal boundaries. If this bill passes the agencies involved will eventually agree on the boundaries and, if we are lucky, will eventually allow the public to know the final area.

We deal with this nonsense all the time. Clearly there are boundary maps passed around to the Congresscritters but they are not considered definite or final. Kinda just squiggly lines on a very simple one page map. Not something you could rely on to know where the final boundary will be on the ground.

As long as Congress continues to abdicate their power to the executive agencies the people and their representatives won't be able to really know where any of these proposed land status changes are happening. In my opinion it seems a silly way to manage public property and it's certainly not fair to the locals who have these changes imposed on them willy nilly.

If you want a general idea about the proposed changes you can read the Washington Post.

On 1/29/2019 at 9:30 PM, davsgold said:

G'day Clay Diggins

I like this system,  Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM, is it anything like you describe in your post, in Australia I just set all our GPS equipment to this system, and use the same in Google Earth and Oziexplorer as well, and for checking the leases in Western Australia using "Tengraph" which can also be set to the UTM system.

I like it for the simple reason you have 2 sets of numbers, Easting and Northing, and a of course you need to know what Zone, which is mostly automatic on the GPS as it knows what zone/region you are in.

cheers dave 

 

Hi Dave,

I'd written a more involved reply as to why UTM is a good system for small local mapping but fails in a larger map but I lost the whole kit and caboodle when I went for a glass of water. Being as how I type with one finger and I still have to work for a living I'm not able to recreate the whole post again. I'll leave you with a short explanation and a link to a really cool animation that helps explain the why UTM is not a good choice for this grids and graticules over a large area..

From The Nature of Geographic Information

Quote

One disadvantage of the UTM system is that multiple coordinate systems must be used to account for large entities. The lower 48 United States, for instance, is spread across ten UTM zones. The fact that there are many narrow UTM zones can lead to confusion. For example, the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is east of the city of Pittsburgh. If you compare the Eastings of centroids representing the two cities, however, Philadelphia's Easting (about 486,000 meters) is less than Pittsburgh's (about 586,000 meters). Why? Because although the cities are both located in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, they are situated in two different UTM zones. As it happens, Philadelphia is closer to the origin of its Zone 18 than Pittsburgh is to the origin of its Zone 17. If you were to plot the points representing the two cities on a map, ignoring the fact that the two zones are two distinct coordinate systems, Philadelphia would appear to the west of Pittsburgh.

Yeah UTM is actually 60 different map projections that can be treated as one as long as you are working within one UTM zone. Essentially besides the abnormal distortion and lack of repeatable measuring accuracy UTM still depends on four factors in it's description of a single point - the UTM Zone number, North or South of the Equator, the Easting and the Northing. Just as many factors as Lat/Long.

There is a lot more to this whole thing of map projections and which one is best but in the end each map projection has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I myself use UTM on some of my small local map projects when that's the best choice for the use intended. We have thousands of different map projections so we can use the right one for the job at hand. Although UTM is a fine projection on a small local level the compromises involved don't make it a good projection for large scale grids and graticules.

Thanks for the input Dave.

Barry

On 1/29/2019 at 8:46 PM, delnorter said:

Wow, another ambitious undertaking. From your list of ongoing improvements to your mapping, I would like to see the land patents and wilderness layers implemented first Barry.

Great mapping library / repository,

Mike

Thanks for the feedback Mike. ?

We've already mapped the wilderness areas on the Land Status Maps. There is a single wilderness map for the entire United States as well as individual mapping on each of the State specific Land Status maps.

The Patents mapping is a work in progress. 4 years now! With more than 6 million patents to map it's been a real challenge. We do have a few State wide patent maps that are working in house but we'd like to tune those a lot more before we go public. Each map has links to a copy of each patent grant as well as the survey plat when available. If you would like I can send you a link privately to a sample patent map so you can see how we are progressing and get your feedback. Just PM me if that's something you would like to comment on, your ideas on this would be of value to us.

You can see mineral patent mapping with direct grant downloading and links to the Serial Register entries on the California, Colorado and Arizona Mining Claims Maps. The mineral patent boundaries can usually be seen by turning on the "Special Surveys" and "PLSS Second Division" map layers as well.

We could include mineral patents on the other mining claim maps but like our many other projects we rely on public input to guide what gets priority. So far there have been no requests to continue with mineral patent mapping so it's got a low priority.

Barry

We've been considering some additions to the map tools on Land Matters and would like user's feedback.

Land area locations in the U.S. are typically described by their legal land description (PLSS). This is the only system that has been physically surveyed and has actual physical markers on the ground. That's why it's the system for legally describing land parcels.

All the Land Matters maps have the PLSS included as a possible display item but a lot of people (military) have been trained to use a grid to describe actual ground locations. Graticules are very much like grids but they have the advantage of following the earth's curvature, unlike grid maps. Digital graticules are capable of increasing in resolution as you zoom in to an area. These are advantages of a graticule but the use of a graticule is just like using a grid.

It's possible to use both the PLSS and a graticule when mapping so we thought we would see if some people would like the option of using a grid type mapping system. To that end I have included graticule layers on our historic places and ghost towns map to let folks try out this system and see if they would like these layers included on other Land Matters maps.

If you have an interest give it a try at the Historic Places Map. You can read more about grids, graticules and their uses on our New Projects page.

Let us know if you would like this feature added to the maps. It's a bunch of work to make those changes so we'll have to see some demand before we add these in.

Barry

With .68 gram per ton and an 8oz sample it could easily be the nugget effect if free milling gold is involved. Gold being malleable is particularly susceptible to the nugget effect in small samples.

Your sample was 1/4000 ton so at .68 gram/ton the assay result could be based on a single particle of gold weighing .0011023 of a milligram.

Perhaps only one sample from the split had a tiny gold particle? In which case, assuming excellent and multiple assays, the results would be .34 g/ton.

Fire assays are the standard but generally many assays are done on randomized samples before any assumptions about the quantity per ton of any particular deposit can be made.

I suspect you will hear something similar from your assayers.

Clearly they were different samples. Were both fire assays?

Land Matters updated their Mining Claim Maps this past Wednesday.

Although the LR2000 has been shut down Land Matters gets their data directly from the main BLM database in Denver. This mining claims update is only current until the gov shutdown on December 21st. We've been updating these maps twice a month for more than 4 years now.

There have been some really big changes in Arizona this past month with a lot of ground opening up in some very good areas. A lot of the newly closed claims were old, from the 1930's and later so this isn't just the usual end of year churn.

On a related subject the LR2000 went live again today. I guess the new boss told them to flip the switch? It did seem petty to take it down during the shutdown since the servers are already paid for. 

Check the pH of your clay solution. If the pH is low (acidic) add some hydrated lime (Calcium hydroxide) to your water and the clay particles will go into suspension easier. This stuff is pretty cheap and won't mess up the environment.

Be careful to keep the lime dust out of your eyes and off your skin it can cause chemical irritation.

18 hours ago, Northeast said:

Yep, that black one is a cracker ?

Oh   If you only knew what you just wrote in American English! ?

On 8/10/2018 at 9:39 PM, tvanwho said:

so why do coin dealers and jewelers tell us the retail price on our found jewelry is like $1,000 + and then they turn around and offer us pennies for it? I never understood this ?

3,000 pounds of #2 steel only costs about $350. If you ignore the design, alloying, fabricating, shipping, storage, dealer profit, taxes, CAPEX, labor and marketing costs a small car shouldn't cost much more than $500.

Jewelers do all that and then display and advertise their goods in expensive limited exposure retail settings for months or years before selling them. The elemental gold and gems in a simple necklace or ring often involves a higher cost of raw material than a car that sells within 6 months in a very low overhead retail setting.

The car dealer takes the car into stock on credit, the jeweler carries their stock on a cash basis. When you factor in the costs for the time and opportunity value of money the jeweler has a much higher unit overhead and still manages to provide a unique product, unlike the auto manufacturers.

Why should a car with a few thousands of dollars worth of material and labor cost $30,000 new and only net $500 when sold for scrap value? Is the junkyard that's buying your scrap car making a fortune from that $500 purchase? Or maybe the car manufacturer is a crook?

When you bought your last car or jewelry did you weigh them and figure out their raw material value before you bought them or did you buy the car or jewelry that best fit your desires and budget?

You can't really blame the buyer of your gold/gems for the situation. At best they will make about 5% on the transaction after their costs are subtracted.

If you purchased your jewelry or car with an eye to resale values you could receive more in a public resale situation than any jewelry scrap dealer or junkyard will pay you. A Cartier or Bulgari necklace will usually appreciate in resale value over time. A Walmart 14k gold necklace has a market value little better than scrap the day you purchase it.

If the jeweler tells you they think your jewelry has a retail value of $1,000 and you accept less than spot value for the metal is it the jewelers fault you decided to scrap the piece rather than selling it yourself for $1,000?

If a used car dealer tells you the car you purchased for $30,000 7 years ago is now worth $2,000 in the retail market and you sell it to a scrapyard for $500 is it the used car dealer that's at fault for your "loss"?

You can't really expect either the used car dealer or the jeweler to purchase your used goods at the retail value and  put them into their stock, there would be no profit left for them.

The jeweler and the used car dealer both have distribution networks where they can buy and sell goods just like the ones you are offering for considerably less than retail. They have long term relationships and credit built up through these networks. Why would they pay you anywhere near their wholesale cost when there is only one transaction involved and you won't be there to back up your deal or provide more business in the future?

I realize you have little control over the quality or value of your finds but I hope the above will give you a basis for understanding the concept of "value" when applied to jewelry. There are ways to get more money for your finds but they involve more work than just figuring out scrap value.

If you want better offers from your buyers establish yourself as a long term customer/supplier. Find one or two buyers who offer you the best deals and build a relationship with them. Once you show some knowledge, respect and consistency your offers from them will increase right along with your value to them as a long term customer. I know several jewelers and coin dealers who regularly give me much better deals than they would an unknown off the street customer who was offering the same goods. That's because I've created a long term ongoing relationship that is mutually beneficial.

Or you can try selling your finds at retail prices to the public. The jeweler or coin dealer has already provided you with a good estimate of retail value for free. After a few rounds of the retail experience you will better understand how overhead and the time cost of money affects the final cost of goods. You will get more money for your find but it will involve more expense and take considerably longer for you to complete the transaction.

Business is about making a profit but for tradesmen it's also about building relationships that will further their business goals. Try to walk a mile in their shoes and I think you will discover that the real value in jewelry is all about market realities and is not based on the cost of materials they are made of or the price tag in a display case. If you continue to sell your finds for scrap value you can't really expect to get retail values. If you want retail values you will need to find a profitable way to sell them yourself at retail.

52 minutes ago, Mac said:

LOL ... that is a question posed for Jim_Alaska, not Steve. Jim_Alaska use to live here (Alaska) and am curious "what drove him from Alaska" to his present location in Northern California.

 

Is this a contest? I'll guess two donkeys and a small spider monkey. Those spider monkeys will run you right out of a nice home and when they team up together with donkeys your days are numbered. What's the prize?

Just to get this back on topic. Steve is obviously lurking nearby. I had a couple of the guys clean up his office before he got back but I'm not sure the twins moved on yet. Could one of you guys stop by and do a quick check to see if the girls are still sleeping? I'm thinking Mrs. Steve wouldn't be too happy to find them in her bedroom.

All you guys who drank all that virtual beer still owe me 62 cents for your share of the virtual keg. If you can't pay up that's going to put some doubt about the next party when Steve leaves town. I know you guys like the cheep swill but the twins are making noises about how they like a better class of swill and they might just go to the upscale "Bill Southern's out of town" party instead of crashing at Steve's. Just a few issues that came up this round, maybe a meeting of the cheep swill lovers is in order before the next party?

It's that time again. The August 31 deadline to make your required annual mining claims filings is only a month away.