Elevation And Large Placer Nuggets In California

[AU_Solitude]

We all know gold is where you find it, and that the number of small nuggets far outnumbers the large, however, it seems to me that the vast majority of larger nuggets seem to be plucked from lower elevations here in California. Why is this?

Is it because more people hunt the lower elevations? Is it because the terrain is easier traverse so it is hunted more effectively at lower elevations? Is there a lack of larger placer gold at higher elevations due to geological upheaval of ancient riverbeds or other factors? Is it simply that most of ancient gold bearing waterways deposited gold at what are now lower elevations?

Opinions please...

[klunker]

 Don't fall for it. Lower elevations have a year round mining season and had more water available and more miners in the early days thus- more large nuggets.

  On second thought, your right. There is absolutely no point in anyone coming up here to look for large nuggets. 

[Sourdough Scott]

I'm guessing it was the being more remote and can only work a partial season due to the snow, mt lions,  bears and sasquatch. 

[Reno Chris]

Agreed. There are no large nuggets in the higher elevations of California. Neither Steve nor myself nor anyone I know has ever found anything more than just a few tiny flakes in the higher elevation locations. So keep focused on the lower elevations like less than 1500 ft. if you want to find anything.  Nothing to see here, move along, move along........

[Roughwater]

1 hour ago, AU_Solitude said:

however, it seems to me that the vast majority of larger nuggets seem to be plucked from lower elevations here in California. Why is this?

Solitude,

Reading between, or maybe above the lines you have your answer.

[AU_Solitude]

I was looking for serious opinions, I know there is large gold at higher elevations; my question was why are larger nuggets found more frequently at lower elevations. I was hoping to spark some conversation here but if it's just going to turn into a joke I'll take my leave.

[Breakofday]

Gravity friend, gravity

[LukeJ]

Here's my take:   All the lower areas, near the water, are the most heavily prospected areas.  More finds means the possibility of more show and tell.  Plus the gold probably has been concentrating in the low areas.  The farther you get from the water, uphill, the fewer prospectors and fewer finds.  By the time a guy with a metal detector makes it to the top of the hill, if there's gold there, I can't imagine he'd tell everyone.  Just my opinion...

Luke  

[Reno Chris]

It is a vague question. What is the lower elevation? What's the higher elevations? Probably every guy on this thread has different ideas of what is what,  so we could all be talking about different things. 

Depending on the elevations we are talking about, I may or may not agree with you.

Consider this:

As a general thing, the lowest foothills of the sierra (say less than 300 ft elevation) are largely buried in Sacramento valley lake mud - sediments left behind from when the central valley was an inland sea. Some gold in there, but not much and a lot of it is well buried. The western foothills from more or less around 300 feet to about 4000 feet are mesozoic and paleozoic metamorphic rocks. These are the gold bearing rocks of the sierra, and that's why the most of the gold is found in and around these rocks and in the elevations where these rocks outcrop. The backbone or core of the sierra which has the highest elevations are granitic rocks that have only a little bit of gold. There are some little areas of the gold bearing rock types in around in the granite and these do have some gold in them. These islands of gold bearing rock are more common to the north of the Sierra. So the bulk of the gold is found from maybe 300 to 4000 ft elevation, with some gold higher and some lower. That middle zone where the gold bearing rocks outcrop are the best areas to prospect, and produce the most gold.

[AU_Solitude]

Thanks Chris, I guess "lower elevation" was pretty subjective and vague, I had 3,000 feet or less in mind. You gave me exactly the answer I was looking for though!