Tom_in_CA

sweet !

Brian, why don't you just come on out and admit that you screwed up . Eh ? 😝 And besides, you got the last 2 gold coins in our "back-pocket sites". So: It was my turn anyhow, eh ? 🤣

Yup. I know we all love to talk about and compare tech toys. But at the end of the day, the better coins are usually always a function of : Location location location. This one was actually shallow, for example. I think it was even in a gopher hole mound, practically on top ! El, you are welcome to come to Monterey any time. It's been awhile since you've seen my trays. They're all in blue-print style drawer/cabinets. Where each pullout is stocked with shadow boxes, of various themes and locations. Bring the wife over, and Sheila & I will take ya to dinner here. Yes, Brian is fun to hunt with. Hard to beat his passion. Knows how to appreciate the history, the targets & the challenges. Not one of those types who let the machine rot in the closet. Good researcher too. Of the two period coins we got on this hunt, neither was captured live on video dig. Just Murphy's law I suppose. We DID capture a bunch of digs (taking turns to film each other, in the certain zone where zero new targets exist). But as Murphy's law would have it, those all turned out to be things like toe-taps, buckle "keepers", metal slag, etc..... Which all would have made for "filler" material, surrounding a coin dig or two. But alas, .... the coin digs weren't captured. If Brian wants to make a video, I still have 13 clips of filler material. Then the 2 coins can just be still-shots, eh ?

alaskaseeker, coil-power, thanx for looking and helping us relish our finds. 👍 And happa54: How do you know we weren't south of the Santa Barbara line ? 🤣

Yes. Using the Minelab Explorer II

Hey there GB-amateur : Yes, one of your Philly mints snuck across the Mississippi river, to CA . I feel SSeeeooo bad 😞 I will eat a 2nd jelly donut tomorrow morning for penance. ok? Then will you absolve my conscience of all guilt ? 🥵 No, none of my 16 gold coins were CC mint. But I was hunting with a buddy, back in the late 1990s, who got a rare CC $5 gold (I forget what year) only ~20 yards away from me. At the time, I think we valued it at 8 to 10k value. I'm sure it's more now. I also saw a private mint CA gold found right near me. Moffat, if I recall. In each of those 2 cases, both those guys were at sites that I took them to. (ie.: my research, my permissions, etc....)

thanx guys for the "high-5's". Especially coming from some of the most respected names and figures of our hobby/industry !

nice !

Aside from the fabled fellows who were the first ones to ever hit Camp Floyd ("Johnston's Army") in Utah, I don't know of anyone in the USA who's got this many. Not counting caches, that is. Ie.: Just counting fumble fingers individual losses. I know several guys in CA that I hunt with, who have 2 or 3 or 4-ish. And one buddy of mine who's at I think 8 so far (but one of them was from his current location in Australia). There are more found on the west coast, than on the east coast. Lots of theories have been advanced as to the reason for that. But that's for another thread/topic. 🙂

Hey guys, I haven't done a show & tell on this particular forum yet. But a few friends I know here aren't necessarily members or readers of some of the other forums. So here is my latest trophy show & tell. Got this @ last Saturday, on a hunt with Brian "Cal Cobra". An 1881 P $10 gold. This is my 16th gold coin of my career so far. Brian also got an old coin from this trip, but .... we'll let him chime in with his 🙂 This site has, so far, given up a Spanish reale, an 1829 bust dime, some 1800's foreign coins, an 1853 seated quarter, gold rush buckles, etc... And oodles and oodles of period "whatzitz" that keep us on the edge of our seats. All I can say about the location is: "In California" 🙂

Paul, thanx for the clarification. And as for the recent $10 gold, it's my 16th gold coin. I'll go ahead and put a show & tell post on this forum too, in a minute.

Paul, you never cease to amaze me. You definitely earned those seated halves ! Congratz. This wouldn't happen to be the same location, as the picnic site we were asking you to look into, would it ? Nearby, but not the exact same site, right ? Also: Did you see the 1881 P $10 gold I just found this last weekend ? It's on FMDF now.

Welcome from coastal CA . The Garrets of the mid 1970s were among the best of that era. Wasn't till the later 1970s that Whites pushed them off that throne.

thanx for allowing me to sign up. A very-respected industry voice's forum, no less ! This forum was pointed out to me , by a fellow on another forum, because he wanted me to chime in on a thread about long-range-locators. (which I have done now already). I've been md'ing since about age ~14, in the mid 1970s. Live in Monterey, CA, work in Salinas, CA.

"... Being a science nerd type I don’t believe in either dowsing or ghosts....." This is where it almost gets comical with them. Because a lot of them distance themselves from any sort of supernatural explanation, lest it get lumped into a category of spooks, occult, mystical, religion, etc.... And .... no no no, we can't go THERE, right ? Because, gee, what's next ouija boards ? seances ? Thus ... no no no, we can't go there. So what they will say is : That the explanation is totally scientific in nature. Nothing to do with spooks, or spirits, etc.... And, in the effort to show that it's scientifically based, they will even offer various explanations. With $20 high-sounding words. About the attractions of objects, etc..... If someone with a scientific background goes to try to dismantle the explanations (showing that they hold no merit), then they resort to this : That dowsing is: Un-discovered science. After all, science once thought the earth was flat. Right ? And science once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Right ? Well so too is dowsing simply "Un-discovered" science. And some day, science will come along, and be able to explain how it works. But .... rest assured, it's totally scientific. But then, in the same discussion threads/blogs/forums : OTHER dowsers will start rambling on about things that .... border on the mystical and occult explanations. Ie.: that it takes "faith" and "belief", "auras" and other such buzzwords that start to sound almost new-age, or religious . And when you point out to them that their peers have said it's "totally scientific" (So as-to-point-out their internal contradictions within their camps), then they have the following wonderful compromise agreement within their ranks : "Who cares HOW it works?" It doesn't matter whether this side of the aisle (the "science" explanation camp) is right, or the other side of the aisle (the supernatural explanation camp) is right. The bottom line is: That it works. And thus they see no internal consistency problem with the multitude of conflicting explanations , that pop up within their ranks.

Hey there Steve, thanx for letting me join your site. Got prompted , from a fellow on another forum, to come read what you'd written about LRL's. Because that person know I was a rabid skeptic on that subject, haha. 😇 I Enjoyed GB-amateur's video link. To comment on what you've written on the subject, I've lifted the following quotes from you. And wonder if you could take-a-crack at the common "push-backs", that the believers offer, to what you're saying . My comments, following each of your quotes, is their typical responses . So I'm just playing the devil's advocate, to see how you'd respond : "... For me these devices have always failed the most basic test... the experience of hundreds of thousands of prospectors and treasure hunters around the world...." "Huh ? What do you mean they 'fail the tests' ? There's scores of testimonials of success. I mean, gee, haven't you see the advertisements of guys posing next to the jars of coins that they found ? Photos don't lie after all, eh ? And no, it's not random eventual luck. They will say they've found goodies without a "detector to pinpoint", thus ruling out eventual random odds. And if you point them to staged double-blind tests that have been done, they will dismiss those too. For very simple reasons: A) Those dowsing/LRL test subject persons weren't qualified or experienced enough. B) The tests were rigged to make-certain that the dowsers/LRL failed. C) Durned those sun-spots or lunar burps or EMI after all, that must've been present that day. D) You can't count an isolated singular test. I mean, after all, do MD'rs find a gold ring or gold coin every day they go out ? No, of course not. Then why the double-standard expectation for dowsing and LRL ? "... If it works, the use soon spreads to other prospectors....." IT MOST CERTAINLY HAS "spread to other prospectors". Why do you think that there is historical mentions of dowsing that goes all the way back to ancient times ? If it didn't work, then .... by golly .... they wouldn't have been doing it and spreading the word to others. And people wouldn't have continued the practice . Thus the word, and usage, did indeed "spread". There's scores of people doing it in present times. So how can you say it hasn't "spread" ? "... Except for a few obvious promotionals, the success stories of people using LRL devices are glaringly absent....." That's got a bullet proof rationale : The reason you don't hear of too many caches and treasures and riches being found by the LRL/dowser gang, is easy: Because they're after "big game". Not a few individual nuggets here and there. Not singular coins like the lowly md'rs. Heck no. They're after the big-ticket caches ! And as such, they therefore keep mum and secret about their finds. Because, since they're so big, then ... gee ... they don't want to open themselves up for the chance that thieves might target their home. And the IRS would come knocking on their door for taxes. So they keep mum and aren't boasting. Loose lips sink ships after all. But rest assured: It works, and treasures are being found. "... And just in case anyone thinks I am close-minded about something I have never tried, I have a set of dowsing rods and have tried it. ...." And you know what that means, don't you ? It simply means you weren't doing it right. And/or didn't practice long enough. For example : If you took a newbie md'r and a skilled md'r, out to an old park , who is most likely to find old silver with their detector ? Obviously the skilled md'r, who has years of experience. Right ? So why the double-standard for LRL/dowsing ? Thus the fact of someone testing /trying it, and coming away with no results ... NEVER means: "It doesn't work". Instead, it always/only means: a) You need more practice, and b) you were doing it wrong. See ?