Higher Producing, Well-known Gold Districts Vs. Lesser Known Smaller Producing Ones

[tboykin]

Morning all. It's been an interesting few years for me with a change of jobs and two new family additions. After "scratching the itch" HARD last year I realized that with two young kids it's best to cool off on spending days and weeks in the bush away from the family. I still go on trips and find gold, it's just become more special and less of an every month deal. Which makes research extra-important!

In reading up on specific gold districts in certain areas, there are two main categories:

1. High-producing, well-known districts that have been worked from about the 1850's to 1930's, with current claims for hobbyists or small-time mining operations. These are concentrated in areas with a larger area of interesting geology.
2. Lower producing small districts that are scattered well-away from the above larger areas that were worked from the 1850's to late 1890's and are not popular today. These are spread out, sometimes 50+ miles away from well-known districts, and feature "anomalous geology" such as a narrow sliver of surface greenstone and quartz veins surrounded by newer volcanic formations.

In the past I have concentrated on well-known districts (#1) as many old timers have told me "go where the gold is." It makes sense to me - if there was a lot of gold in an area and recovery was not good, there is a bigger chance of finding some small crumbs missed by others. However these areas are well-known to all and detected by many. So I try to focus on fringe areas in these districts that are harder for people to get to.

It's "low risk, low reward," and I realize now, potentially the wrong tactic in today's world where it's getting harder to find nice chunks.

My thinking on hitting some of the smaller, scattered areas (#2) is that with less modern attention, even if there was less gold recovered, there may be more overall gold left behind by old timers. Simple target depletion - work stopped over 100 years ago, and these areas have been left alone since then, leaving more potentially good targets to find.

I'm curious what you think about following the path less-travelled to some of the smaller, less-popular districts.

[Norvic]

Aye, lesser known out in the fringe areas are the go, as there was not much work done in these areas, very little history thus research is of little use. Leg work, time on the ground swinging is the way. We are fortunate to be the generation that have a powerful surface loaming gold detector, that allows one to scan a lot of likely looking areas in short time.  Generations before us had a pan/dry blower that took many weeks of loaming and elbow grease to cover an area that we can do in days at relative ease. MD users just need the time, a positive open minded approach, and lots of patience.  

[WesD]

In the CA motherload belt there is a virtual continuous gold deposit some 200 plus miles long. Some creeks and hills have more gold than others, but basically there is some amount if you stay within or near the belt. Then there are some real hot spots the old timers worked hard which  became famous.  X's were marked on maps, reports written,  and rumors still float about to this day how rich the area was.  Well I aint never done very good in those so called hot spots. Its usually been some no name side job nearby that has no record or reports, and produces the goods.

[tboykin]

19 minutes ago, Norvic said:

Aye, lesser known out in the fringe areas are the go, as there was not much work done in these areas, very little history thus research is of little use.

This is key. Some of the areas I'm keen on are not on maps, or there is little more written about them than "hydraulic mining operation, unknown production." They are well outside the "gold belt" where I'm used to going. Maybe it was difficult to get supplies there, or the men moved on to easier diggings. Definitely worth a gander.

[flakmagnet]

16 minutes ago, WesD said:

Its usually been some no name side job nearby that has no record or reports, and produces the goods.

I agree. I have worked near some incredibly rich areas and it is the forgotten fringes that have produced for me.

 

[bado1]

Yep, what Flak said.

I have found my largest chunks on the fringes of the well known areas. Nenad once posted " take the path of MOST resistance". This advise has paid off well for me. Go in to the well known areas and find the hard to get to, brushy-est areas...do a little "land scaping" and swing away. I once spent an hour removing brush from a small impenetrable brushy gully about 30 feet long and 10 feet wide, in a hard hit well known area, and recovered the nugs that are pictured in my avatar. I went back did and some more "landscaping" and recovered another 6 grams or so.

 

[Gold Hound]

I prefer to go to places where even the old timers didn't get to, no recorded finds no exploration reports nothing. No rubbish at all in these areas! If its hard to get there even better... if there's no water even better again, this weeds out the unfit, lazy, or inexperienced and when I talk to the land holder and ask if anyone has been in there and they say 'No, no one ever goes in there' I get real exited.

I use my knowledge of geology and modern satellite and servey images to target area's, I look for specific anomalies and geology I know to hold potential.

When I get to one of these prospective ares that I have pinpointed I go back 100 years and revert to old tech and whip out the small 10in gold pan that I carry everywhere with me. I sample the junctions of feeder systems as I walk all of the main creeks quickly detecting the probable gold traps as I move along, and when I get colors in the pan... I look real hard!

And if I find a nugget with the detector I methodically work the whole area!

 

[jrbeatty]

5 hours ago, tboykin said:

I'm curious what you think about following the path less-travelled to some of the smaller, less-popular districts

 

1 hour ago, Gold Hound said:

- and when I talk to the land holder and ask if anyone has been in there and they say 'No, no one ever goes in there' I get real excited.

Yep.  completely unknown and unworked areas are the go. These can lead to significant finds.

Even in a small populous state like Victoria (Aus) there are areas that have not been worked at any time in the past or present - and many miles from known gold fields. 

As Dale says, do the research and follow the geology. You will often draw a blank but when it pays off, it can seriously deliver:

[Jin]

4 hours ago, Gold Hound said:

if there's no water even better again,

 

4 hours ago, Gold Hound said:

evert to old tech and whip out the small 10in gold pan that I carry everywhere with me. I sample the junctions of feeder systems

Is there a way to sample ground drypanning without water?

[flakmagnet]

Dale, you guys still set the standard for great detecting videos and common sense borne of experience. It's always nice to see you post.