I was going through John Mitchell's book, "Lost Mines of the Great Southwest" the other day and came across something interesting.
In his section on the Lost Dutchman Mine he states the following - that I suppose could be perceived as a clue. The "three" he refers to are Julia Thomas, Hermann and Gotfried Petrasch...
"...The three spent the summer of 1892 in the mountains, but did not find the mine, although they found and identified a trench dug on the Black Queen claim at Goldfield as having been dug by Walz and which was the first mark on the trail to the other mine. ..."
It is supposed at one time or another Mitchell managed to have interviewed Julia. He also probably interviewed both Rhiney and Hermann. (Maybe even Gotfried... but I doubt it...) So, they would have been primary sources for his material.
However, local oral tales and traditions regarding the Lost Dutchman could also as well have been source material. Such things unfortunately cannot be traced back to a direct source. Like the clue about the rays of the setting sun shining into the mine, we cannot be sure exactly where it (the above "clue") came from. But... it is certainly interesting and rarely discussed (if at all)...
Interesting "Clue"
SC,
Everyone seems to be ignoring this very interesting thread, but here's my 2 cents:
The question does seem to be who first said this? Common thought seems to be that Julia was a greenhorn, a city girl, unable to find her way in the wilderness or find a mine. If this is true, how could she possibly identify a trench as having been dug by Waltz? Or could it be that she wasn't such a tenderfoot as people say? She did, after all, finance and make more than one extended search out there. This is not a thing a softie would do. Maybe she was tougher and more experienced than she is given credit for. And, in the final analysis, she didn't do any worse than anyone who has come since.
If it wasn't her that said it, maybe she was parroting something that Gottfried of Hermann told her. But again, what was the thing that distinguished this trench as belonging to Waltz? Or maybe, as you say, it was just the local gossip. But Mitchell pretty much attributes the statement to one of the party.
Maybe we have the wishful thinking syndrome here, akin to thinking that every hole in a rock or broken cactus was put there by the Peraltas. In the initial throes of Dutchman-mania, when everyone and their brother was looking for Dutch Jacobs' Mine, people may have attributed everything they saw to Waltz. I mean, look at Barry Storm.
Just thinking out loud here. But this is a good topic. I wonder where this trench was?
Everyone seems to be ignoring this very interesting thread, but here's my 2 cents:
The question does seem to be who first said this? Common thought seems to be that Julia was a greenhorn, a city girl, unable to find her way in the wilderness or find a mine. If this is true, how could she possibly identify a trench as having been dug by Waltz? Or could it be that she wasn't such a tenderfoot as people say? She did, after all, finance and make more than one extended search out there. This is not a thing a softie would do. Maybe she was tougher and more experienced than she is given credit for. And, in the final analysis, she didn't do any worse than anyone who has come since.
If it wasn't her that said it, maybe she was parroting something that Gottfried of Hermann told her. But again, what was the thing that distinguished this trench as belonging to Waltz? Or maybe, as you say, it was just the local gossip. But Mitchell pretty much attributes the statement to one of the party.
Maybe we have the wishful thinking syndrome here, akin to thinking that every hole in a rock or broken cactus was put there by the Peraltas. In the initial throes of Dutchman-mania, when everyone and their brother was looking for Dutch Jacobs' Mine, people may have attributed everything they saw to Waltz. I mean, look at Barry Storm.
Just thinking out loud here. But this is a good topic. I wonder where this trench was?
Reply
Good post, Wiz. It certainly is an interesting tid-bit Mitchell throws out there. I think several things might have been at play.
One, the concept of wishful thinking as Wiz suggests. Anything found in the early days of Dutchmania being attributed to Waltz. Also, a wishful association of Waltz to Goldfield - a proven site of mineralization and gold ore.
But, to positively identify it as being dug by Waltz is certainly stretching the imagination... unless that spot was a starting spot (or "mark" as Mitchell says...) to locating something else. So, since it was near where it was supposed to be, maybe it was what they thought they were seeking... And, thus, associated with Waltz. Who knows...
What is interesting is that the Holmes clue of "... first, go to 'first water' then go to 'second water' then take the trail to San Carlos..." seems to be a little similar in intent. "First mark on the trail"? A trail to follow into the mountains to the "other mine?" Is the same thing trying to be conveyed - a route?
Government Well is what is speculated as what Waltz meant when he said "first water." That is close to Goldfield. Perhaps Waltz had outlined a route starting there (near what would become Goldfield) and it led to some other location that would eventually take one in to the right place. And then that clue was filtered through Thomas and the Petrasches to Mitchell. If that is the case, then perhaps there is a similarity or a parallelism going on with the Holmes "first water/second water clue." That being some sort of route was intended. But, that is just speculation on my part.
It just seems to me the Mitchell statement is the remanent of some sort of clue indicating a route. And for some reason Thomas and the Petrasch thought it equated with a trench and/or Goldfield. Well... at least in their minds it did. But "first mark on the trail" implies a route. So, it goes back to "what did Waltz say or intend?"
This is interesting, as other Thomas/Petrasch clues imply entering the mountains from the southside of the range. "...first gorge on the south side back from the west end of the main mountain... etc." The "trench/mark on the trail" clue implies one might enter the range from the west side. (I see Joe's eyes light up... )
Shadows of Weavers Needle, window rocks, stone faces, houses in caves, red hills, light shining into mines, military trails... trenches... marks on trails... Peraltas... partners... Wow! Where does all this stuff come from? And what does it really mean?
One, the concept of wishful thinking as Wiz suggests. Anything found in the early days of Dutchmania being attributed to Waltz. Also, a wishful association of Waltz to Goldfield - a proven site of mineralization and gold ore.
But, to positively identify it as being dug by Waltz is certainly stretching the imagination... unless that spot was a starting spot (or "mark" as Mitchell says...) to locating something else. So, since it was near where it was supposed to be, maybe it was what they thought they were seeking... And, thus, associated with Waltz. Who knows...
What is interesting is that the Holmes clue of "... first, go to 'first water' then go to 'second water' then take the trail to San Carlos..." seems to be a little similar in intent. "First mark on the trail"? A trail to follow into the mountains to the "other mine?" Is the same thing trying to be conveyed - a route?
Government Well is what is speculated as what Waltz meant when he said "first water." That is close to Goldfield. Perhaps Waltz had outlined a route starting there (near what would become Goldfield) and it led to some other location that would eventually take one in to the right place. And then that clue was filtered through Thomas and the Petrasches to Mitchell. If that is the case, then perhaps there is a similarity or a parallelism going on with the Holmes "first water/second water clue." That being some sort of route was intended. But, that is just speculation on my part.
It just seems to me the Mitchell statement is the remanent of some sort of clue indicating a route. And for some reason Thomas and the Petrasch thought it equated with a trench and/or Goldfield. Well... at least in their minds it did. But "first mark on the trail" implies a route. So, it goes back to "what did Waltz say or intend?"
This is interesting, as other Thomas/Petrasch clues imply entering the mountains from the southside of the range. "...first gorge on the south side back from the west end of the main mountain... etc." The "trench/mark on the trail" clue implies one might enter the range from the west side. (I see Joe's eyes light up... )
Shadows of Weavers Needle, window rocks, stone faces, houses in caves, red hills, light shining into mines, military trails... trenches... marks on trails... Peraltas... partners... Wow! Where does all this stuff come from? And what does it really mean?
-
BlackBeard
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:02 pm
Mine Out House
Mines have Toilets too!
Last edited by BlackBeard on Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Eyes Wide Shut
S.C.,
I don't know if my eyes are lit up, but I think you may have some misconceptions on my feeling concerning all things Holmes.
In the first place, I am only interested in the LDM historically. I don't get very excited over any "clues" which might, or might not, point to it's location. I believe it has been found a number of times, and left behind.
As for Holmes clues, I don't dismiss everything ever said by Holmes Sr. or Jr. They were very close to the legend. They had information that was as fresh as it gets, I just don't believe it came from Jacob Waltz. That does not mean they did not have accurate information.
I have every reason to believe that Brownie found the Waltz ravine, and finding no mine moved on, thinking that it must be in the next ravine over. I think the same thing happened to John Chuning and many others.
I believe that Julia Thomas never saw the ravine, or even came close to seeing it. She had the best directions and the least chance of finding the ravine.
It is more than likely that James Bark found the Waltz ravine and not seeing the mine, believed it was somewhere close, but just out of his reach. He walked away from the ravine shaking his head and kept searching. He knew (almost) where it was. I have that on the "best" authority. 
I like to think I look at both "camps" with eyes wide open. I would not dismiss, out of hand, clues from either quarter. That may not agree with all of the posts I have made in the past, but I don't always think as fast as I type.
Having spoken to a few (really, really) old timers concerning the LDM, I would not put a lot of faith in any author's claims of pertinent clues to the Waltz mine. The idea that any Dutch Hunter would "spill his guts" to someone researching the subject (even friends) seems unlikely. Any clues must be read from between the lines. The clues with obvious landmarks and monuments would be the least to be trusted. This has been stated by many others on this site, and in many different ways.
Mitchell's story may be an exact waybill to the LDM, but chances are that it has an ocean of fiction mixed with a grain of truth. It's been around for a long time and I doubt anyone has moved much closer to the Waltz location because of it.
That is all opinion and conjecture so I could, of course, be wrong.
Nice thread.
Respectfully,
Joe
I don't know if my eyes are lit up, but I think you may have some misconceptions on my feeling concerning all things Holmes.
In the first place, I am only interested in the LDM historically. I don't get very excited over any "clues" which might, or might not, point to it's location. I believe it has been found a number of times, and left behind.
As for Holmes clues, I don't dismiss everything ever said by Holmes Sr. or Jr. They were very close to the legend. They had information that was as fresh as it gets, I just don't believe it came from Jacob Waltz. That does not mean they did not have accurate information.
I have every reason to believe that Brownie found the Waltz ravine, and finding no mine moved on, thinking that it must be in the next ravine over. I think the same thing happened to John Chuning and many others.
I believe that Julia Thomas never saw the ravine, or even came close to seeing it. She had the best directions and the least chance of finding the ravine.
It is more than likely that James Bark found the Waltz ravine and not seeing the mine, believed it was somewhere close, but just out of his reach. He walked away from the ravine shaking his head and kept searching. He knew (almost) where it was.
I have that on the "best" authority. I like to think I look at both "camps" with eyes wide open. I would not dismiss, out of hand, clues from either quarter. That may not agree with all of the posts I have made in the past, but I don't always think as fast as I type.
Having spoken to a few (really, really) old timers concerning the LDM, I would not put a lot of faith in any author's claims of pertinent clues to the Waltz mine. The idea that any Dutch Hunter would "spill his guts" to someone researching the subject (even friends) seems unlikely. Any clues must be read from between the lines. The clues with obvious landmarks and monuments would be the least to be trusted. This has been stated by many others on this site, and in many different ways.
Mitchell's story may be an exact waybill to the LDM, but chances are that it has an ocean of fiction mixed with a grain of truth. It's been around for a long time and I doubt anyone has moved much closer to the Waltz location because of it.
That is all opinion and conjecture so I could, of course, be wrong.
Nice thread.
Respectfully,
Joe
Reply
Joe,
Nice post. I have to say, I agree in principle with a lot you say.
I must apologize if I had the misconception you dismissed the Holmes information. But, some of your prior posts might lead one to think that. You wrote: “That may not agree with all of the posts I have made in the past, but I don't always think as fast as I type.” We probably all have made posts “off the cuff” so to speak that lead people to believe something different than what we mean. I appreciate you clarifying your stance.
You wrote the following:
“In the first place, I am only interested in the LDM historically. I don't get very excited over any "clues" which might, or might not, point to it's location.”
Good outlook. We should all keep that in mind for ourselves. We tallk a lot about “clues” here on this forum. Clues, like maps, are so commonplace that a person shouldn’t get too worked up over any one particular item. Considering that, and putting things into perspective, all we probably have left is the “history.” Though I have to say, the LDM sparks my interest more so than say “Peralta”/Mexican/Jesuit mines or treasure also supposedly located in or near the Superstitions. Therefore my personal interest in the LDM itself is perhaps a little more than just the history of it. There is also the “mystery” of it.
You also wrote:
“I believe that Julia Thomas never saw the ravine, or even came close to seeing it. She had the best directions and the least chance of finding the ravine.”
True. She probably had the best information, if only she would have realized what to do with it and remembered more of it. And she probably could have gotten more information, if she thought it through. And probably could have used that information better if only she understood the significance. And, sadly, she had the least chance of finding being so out of her element in the mountains.
And you wrote:
“Having spoken to a few (really, really) old timers concerning the LDM, I would not put a lot of faith in any author's claims of pertinent clues to the Waltz mine. The idea that any Dutch Hunter would "spill his guts" to someone researching the subject (even friends) seems unlikely. Any clues must be read from between the lines. The clues with obvious landmarks and monuments would be the least to be trusted. This has been stated by many others on this site, and in many different ways.”
Here again, you’re probably right. Individually, one shouldn’t put too much stock into any one clue or any one “author’s” particular set of clues or assumptions. It is the entire body of information one should mull over. And, I hate to admit it, you are right in that it is unlikely anyone is going to spill their guts – even to friends – with everything they know. Though, I have some friends I’d share everything I know. But, maybe I am too gullible. But, the seasoned Dutch researcher is certainly not going to give away important secrets to just anyone who asks. And, I agree again, all clues must be “read between the lines.” Nothing is as it appears considering time, bad recollections, and misunderstandings. The least of all to believe are the books explaining exactly where the LDM is supposed to be.
A final comment: Though Mitchell had some authority to his statements, he has to be taken with a grain of salt – just like anyone else has to be.
S.C.
Nice post. I have to say, I agree in principle with a lot you say.
I must apologize if I had the misconception you dismissed the Holmes information. But, some of your prior posts might lead one to think that. You wrote: “That may not agree with all of the posts I have made in the past, but I don't always think as fast as I type.” We probably all have made posts “off the cuff” so to speak that lead people to believe something different than what we mean. I appreciate you clarifying your stance.
You wrote the following:
“In the first place, I am only interested in the LDM historically. I don't get very excited over any "clues" which might, or might not, point to it's location.”
Good outlook. We should all keep that in mind for ourselves. We tallk a lot about “clues” here on this forum. Clues, like maps, are so commonplace that a person shouldn’t get too worked up over any one particular item. Considering that, and putting things into perspective, all we probably have left is the “history.” Though I have to say, the LDM sparks my interest more so than say “Peralta”/Mexican/Jesuit mines or treasure also supposedly located in or near the Superstitions. Therefore my personal interest in the LDM itself is perhaps a little more than just the history of it. There is also the “mystery” of it.
You also wrote:
“I believe that Julia Thomas never saw the ravine, or even came close to seeing it. She had the best directions and the least chance of finding the ravine.”
True. She probably had the best information, if only she would have realized what to do with it and remembered more of it. And she probably could have gotten more information, if she thought it through. And probably could have used that information better if only she understood the significance. And, sadly, she had the least chance of finding being so out of her element in the mountains.
And you wrote:
“Having spoken to a few (really, really) old timers concerning the LDM, I would not put a lot of faith in any author's claims of pertinent clues to the Waltz mine. The idea that any Dutch Hunter would "spill his guts" to someone researching the subject (even friends) seems unlikely. Any clues must be read from between the lines. The clues with obvious landmarks and monuments would be the least to be trusted. This has been stated by many others on this site, and in many different ways.”
Here again, you’re probably right. Individually, one shouldn’t put too much stock into any one clue or any one “author’s” particular set of clues or assumptions. It is the entire body of information one should mull over. And, I hate to admit it, you are right in that it is unlikely anyone is going to spill their guts – even to friends – with everything they know. Though, I have some friends I’d share everything I know. But, maybe I am too gullible. But, the seasoned Dutch researcher is certainly not going to give away important secrets to just anyone who asks. And, I agree again, all clues must be “read between the lines.” Nothing is as it appears considering time, bad recollections, and misunderstandings. The least of all to believe are the books explaining exactly where the LDM is supposed to be.
A final comment: Though Mitchell had some authority to his statements, he has to be taken with a grain of salt – just like anyone else has to be.
S.C.
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
There is nothing like a good cup of homemade espresso in the morning to motivate. So, a thought or two on S.C.’s and Joe’s comments: S.C., I think you are right if I am reading you correctly. I believe that Mitchell was very close to the sources. He personally searched for the Dutchman and lived in the area for many years. And he was on the ground early, very early. He has some things in his writings that indicate he had very good sources. Joe’s comments about others perhaps being in the right place, but not finding the mine and moving on is a very good one. Any look at the history of Dutch Hunting shows that this is not only true for individuals, but collectively as well.
Consider that the Dutchman is hunted mostly by people who are not prospectors, not mining men and many spend little, if any time, searching other old mining sites. If the mine is covered how would most know it if they saw it? I have said many times that in my opinion if you want to seriously hunt the Dutchman forget it (for awhile) and go to the Mojave – or some similar place – and see what a covered mine looks like. How does it look on a ledge? Or, a slope? Or, in the flats? Find some old mines and then analyze how you found them…
Another passing thought is that in the months – perhaps a year or so – before Waltz died do you think he was like most old timers? The ones I have known like to talk of more than one thing in their lives. True, they will or may talk mostly about something they think of greater importance. But, they do talk of other things also. I wonder if Waltz did the same over those many months? I can see him doing that in the months before the flood, and even in the weeks and months that followed. Talking about the Dutchman, and old days in California, in Prescott, on the desert, the gold rush, fighting Indians, discovering his mines in California and Prescott, etc. What are the chances that some of what was later recalled could have included some of both the Dutchman and earlier times?
Consider that the Dutchman is hunted mostly by people who are not prospectors, not mining men and many spend little, if any time, searching other old mining sites. If the mine is covered how would most know it if they saw it? I have said many times that in my opinion if you want to seriously hunt the Dutchman forget it (for awhile) and go to the Mojave – or some similar place – and see what a covered mine looks like. How does it look on a ledge? Or, a slope? Or, in the flats? Find some old mines and then analyze how you found them…
Another passing thought is that in the months – perhaps a year or so – before Waltz died do you think he was like most old timers? The ones I have known like to talk of more than one thing in their lives. True, they will or may talk mostly about something they think of greater importance. But, they do talk of other things also. I wonder if Waltz did the same over those many months? I can see him doing that in the months before the flood, and even in the weeks and months that followed. Talking about the Dutchman, and old days in California, in Prescott, on the desert, the gold rush, fighting Indians, discovering his mines in California and Prescott, etc. What are the chances that some of what was later recalled could have included some of both the Dutchman and earlier times?
Well, I'll chime in on what Thomas said. It is something I always believed. Waltz talked so much during his final days about everything under the sun - and all these things somehow got "blended" and "meshed" together to create what we now see as parts of the LDM story. I believe many events that involved past friends and acquaintences in Prescott and even California were confused by people like Rhiney and Julia - and from their misunderstanding - some of the elements of the LDM "legend" were created.
And to clarify about Mitchell, as with Bark or Ely or even Brownie Holmes, one must take anything with a grain of salt. There are just some things Mitchell said that are incorrect or not true. For example his thoughts on Dick Holmes and a few other things. But a lot of other things he said are worthy of consideration. So, do not get me wrong. Mitchell is a good source. A VERY GOOD source. The same can be said of Bark. Bark has some good stuff. But he is also wrong on some other things. And, despite my leanings towards Holmes, even Brownie's manuscript has some questionable things in it. It is the "reading between the lines" and "separating the wheat form the chaffe" that must be done...
Wiz, as I said, the LDM sparks my imagination and it is more than just history. There is a mystery and it is exciting. Though, in theory, one should be reserved about the proliferation of clues, and "keep things in perspective." But in reality, I have to say, I often get excited about clues. Not all the time. But sometimes. Though, reason says we shouldn't.
And to clarify about Mitchell, as with Bark or Ely or even Brownie Holmes, one must take anything with a grain of salt. There are just some things Mitchell said that are incorrect or not true. For example his thoughts on Dick Holmes and a few other things. But a lot of other things he said are worthy of consideration. So, do not get me wrong. Mitchell is a good source. A VERY GOOD source. The same can be said of Bark. Bark has some good stuff. But he is also wrong on some other things. And, despite my leanings towards Holmes, even Brownie's manuscript has some questionable things in it. It is the "reading between the lines" and "separating the wheat form the chaffe" that must be done...
Wiz, as I said, the LDM sparks my imagination and it is more than just history. There is a mystery and it is exciting. Though, in theory, one should be reserved about the proliferation of clues, and "keep things in perspective." But in reality, I have to say, I often get excited about clues. Not all the time. But sometimes. Though, reason says we shouldn't.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
EXCITEMENT
Wiz,
I suppose that comment was one of the times I was typing faster than I was thinking.
Everything that surrounds the legends of the Superstition Mountains is exciting for me. I just don't see much that is new concerning the LDM,
at least not much that points out a location or area. That does not include some of my own discoveries which have done just that. Few years old at this time, so not really making my "eyes light up" today.
I find that most of the stories of the various legends swirl around the same area of the mountains. They seem closely tied for some reason.
It seems likely that many of the legends may have the same basic source of origination. That source can be found, for me, in the history of Mesoamerica going back to the time of the first Spanish expeditions. Perhaps part of the fabric of truth that makes up the LDM, perhaps not, but the history keeps bumping into our "facts".
In reality, my excitement is tempered by the finding of many clues, trails and monuments in my expeditions, all of which have never been written about, talked about or seen by anyone else that I know of and all of wich have not led to a pile of gold.
Respectfully,
Joe
I suppose that comment was one of the times I was typing faster than I was thinking.
Everything that surrounds the legends of the Superstition Mountains is exciting for me. I just don't see much that is new concerning the LDM,
at least not much that points out a location or area. That does not include some of my own discoveries which have done just that. Few years old at this time, so not really making my "eyes light up" today.
I find that most of the stories of the various legends swirl around the same area of the mountains. They seem closely tied for some reason.
It seems likely that many of the legends may have the same basic source of origination. That source can be found, for me, in the history of Mesoamerica going back to the time of the first Spanish expeditions. Perhaps part of the fabric of truth that makes up the LDM, perhaps not, but the history keeps bumping into our "facts".
In reality, my excitement is tempered by the finding of many clues, trails and monuments in my expeditions, all of which have never been written about, talked about or seen by anyone else that I know of and all of wich have not led to a pile of gold.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Was Waltz a Big Talker?
Dr. Glover,
Your post is very much on point. What we are looking for, is more important, IMHO, than where we are looking. I think I am probably repeating myself there.
I am less sure of how much Jacob Waltz "spilled his guts" in the last months of his life. I don't doubt he told Julia and the boy a great deal about his life and his mine. Is there some evidence that he talked to others during that time? There is always the "Hell, I was there" syndrome.
Everyone who was alive during the Dutchman's time knew him and had any number of one-on-one conversations with him.
There are a few hints as to what kind of a "talker" Waltz was. None of what has been written by authors of anything more than romantic fiction
shows Jacob as a loose talker. Actually he seems to be just the opposite.
An eight month illness culminating in death while in the grip of pneumonia
does not make for a great conversation in your last hours, usually.
You would need to take the word of people who are generally accepted to have stolen the gold from beneath a dead man's bed to make another case. There are many who have no problem with accepting their word.
Anything is possible.
Respectfully,
Joe
Your post is very much on point. What we are looking for, is more important, IMHO, than where we are looking. I think I am probably repeating myself there.
I am less sure of how much Jacob Waltz "spilled his guts" in the last months of his life. I don't doubt he told Julia and the boy a great deal about his life and his mine. Is there some evidence that he talked to others during that time? There is always the "Hell, I was there" syndrome.
Everyone who was alive during the Dutchman's time knew him and had any number of one-on-one conversations with him.
There are a few hints as to what kind of a "talker" Waltz was. None of what has been written by authors of anything more than romantic fiction
shows Jacob as a loose talker. Actually he seems to be just the opposite.
An eight month illness culminating in death while in the grip of pneumonia
does not make for a great conversation in your last hours, usually.
You would need to take the word of people who are generally accepted to have stolen the gold from beneath a dead man's bed to make another case. There are many who have no problem with accepting their word.
Anything is possible.
Respectfully,
Joe
Joe,
Your "ravine" comments are most likely on the money as far as those who have gone before. IF Waltz was really refering to a ravine that was high up on the side of a mountain.
Most of the Deering/Pankin/Soldiers/Swamper/Chunning information seems to refer to something that was high up in a rough place. Much of the Waltz information seems to refer to a place well hidden, but less difficult to get to. What to make of this? Two mines in the same general location? A cache(s) ?Who knows........
Tom
Your comments about Dutch Hunters looking at other mines just to take a gander at what they should be looking for are sage advice.
P
Your "ravine" comments are most likely on the money as far as those who have gone before. IF Waltz was really refering to a ravine that was high up on the side of a mountain.
Most of the Deering/Pankin/Soldiers/Swamper/Chunning information seems to refer to something that was high up in a rough place. Much of the Waltz information seems to refer to a place well hidden, but less difficult to get to. What to make of this? Two mines in the same general location? A cache(s) ?Who knows........
Tom
Your comments about Dutch Hunters looking at other mines just to take a gander at what they should be looking for are sage advice.
P
-
I_Found_The_Gold
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:32 pm
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Great Minds
IFTG,
You are, of course, correct. If the great minds and researchers were to be hitched to the same team, they could pull the world.
It has been done.
I can think of more than a few partnerships that should have gotten the job done.
They have not.
That's because each of these great minds is trapped in the body of a lead horse. Each has come to his own conclusions and can't really be hitched to another man's wagon. To believe you are the only one who really knows the answers requires a larger than average ego.
There are any number of really good teams that have been put together in the past, and I imagine there are a number still working today. One of the best, that comes to mind, would be Lake Erie Schaeffers team. Another would be the team that Chuck Kennworthy put together. His may have had the most talent of them all.
It takes a really good hand to keep any such team pulling in the same direction, and I believe that if any one of the members is the equal of the leader, it is next to impossible to keep everyone in line. It really requires one strong leader and a good number of very intelligent followers. That is not always the case, and my own team is a good example.
There are a number of people on this forum who believe they have put together such a "dream team". From personal statements made to me by some of the members of those teams, they are a little short of having that "dream" quality. That is just human nature, and holds especially true for treasure hunters.
All of this is just my opinion, so I could, of course, be wrong.
If anyone should know the truth of such teams, I would think it would be Greg Davis. He has seen his share of them, and I imagine some that he was a member of.
How much treasure have any of them recovered?
Respectfully,
Joe
You are, of course, correct. If the great minds and researchers were to be hitched to the same team, they could pull the world.
It has been done.
I can think of more than a few partnerships that should have gotten the job done.
They have not.
That's because each of these great minds is trapped in the body of a lead horse. Each has come to his own conclusions and can't really be hitched to another man's wagon. To believe you are the only one who really knows the answers requires a larger than average ego.
There are any number of really good teams that have been put together in the past, and I imagine there are a number still working today. One of the best, that comes to mind, would be Lake Erie Schaeffers team. Another would be the team that Chuck Kennworthy put together. His may have had the most talent of them all.
It takes a really good hand to keep any such team pulling in the same direction, and I believe that if any one of the members is the equal of the leader, it is next to impossible to keep everyone in line. It really requires one strong leader and a good number of very intelligent followers. That is not always the case, and my own team is a good example.
There are a number of people on this forum who believe they have put together such a "dream team". From personal statements made to me by some of the members of those teams, they are a little short of having that "dream" quality. That is just human nature, and holds especially true for treasure hunters.
All of this is just my opinion, so I could, of course, be wrong.
If anyone should know the truth of such teams, I would think it would be Greg Davis. He has seen his share of them, and I imagine some that he was a member of.
How much treasure have any of them recovered?
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
A passing thought about the trench … From a number of sources (if memory serves) I have read/heard that Waltz and Weisser first found a placer then the lode mine. Some sources even say the same day. (This is from memory, and no I do not remember the sources, but at the time I discounted them. So did not file the data away so to speak.) Could the trench Mitchell refers to have been the placer working? For me that does not compute. Locating a lode deposit from a placer finding is a standard way of finding a lode vein; however, if it was in the Goldfields then it would be a lode deposit in the Goldfields. If it was a trench dug in the Goldfields and it showed any gold why would Waltz not stay and work it. The original surface deposits were very rich, and according to the newspapers of the time there were the remains of a Mexican/Spanish camp in the area.
If the trench was a dry prospect how would it link to a mine in the Superstitions? $64 question… And if Julia found a trench how would she know it was Waltz’s? Did he leave his business card? Perhaps Waltz mentioned a trench or a placer prospect and Julia finding one presumed it was Waltz’s? It is possible that Waltz mentioned a trench along with some things associated with it, but did not link it to the mine, and that it was Julia who linked them? Or, it sounds like (as others here have well noted) that it was part of the directions to the mine? My current feeling is that it was (perhaps) the third possibility…
If the trench was a dry prospect how would it link to a mine in the Superstitions? $64 question… And if Julia found a trench how would she know it was Waltz’s? Did he leave his business card? Perhaps Waltz mentioned a trench or a placer prospect and Julia finding one presumed it was Waltz’s? It is possible that Waltz mentioned a trench along with some things associated with it, but did not link it to the mine, and that it was Julia who linked them? Or, it sounds like (as others here have well noted) that it was part of the directions to the mine? My current feeling is that it was (perhaps) the third possibility…
Tom,
I too have heard of the placer find. It was located in (or just above near a rock outcropping) a rough canyon below the main mine and the lode mine itself was higher up in an even rougher area. Whether rough refers to terrain or vegetation (and its probably both if I have my canyons right) I do not know.
P
I too have heard of the placer find. It was located in (or just above near a rock outcropping) a rough canyon below the main mine and the lode mine itself was higher up in an even rougher area. Whether rough refers to terrain or vegetation (and its probably both if I have my canyons right) I do not know.
P
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Re-reading SC’s original posting raises another thought or two. If Mitchell was correct that Julia found a trench on the site of what became the Black Queen then to get into the Superstitions would she not cross what today we call the Goldfield area? Now if I remember correctly the earliest newspaper articles on the discovery of gold at Goldfield tell of not only old mines, but the remains of a large, old Spanish /Mexican site with structures. How did Julia and company miss this? And if it is true what was Julia doing in the Goldfield area in the first place?
If the trench was dug by Waltz he must have had a reason for digging it -- that is, prospecting that area. How did a seasoned prospector and miner like Waltz miss the Black Queen? And since he would have had to have been exploring the area how did he miss the large, old Spanish /Mexican site? And if there is any validity to the story of Waltz and a partner finding a placer site shortly before the lode mine does that mean Waltz prospected the Dutchman out? What about all the stories of it being a Spanish/Mexican mine that was shown to him by Spanish or Mexicans (one of the common or agreed upon points between Thomas/Bicknell and Holmes)? Did Waltz find it all by himself? Did his prospecting get him in the right area and he found a mine being worked by others and kill them out right? If so don’t both the Thomas and Holmes versions suffer considerably?
If the trench was dug by Waltz he must have had a reason for digging it -- that is, prospecting that area. How did a seasoned prospector and miner like Waltz miss the Black Queen? And since he would have had to have been exploring the area how did he miss the large, old Spanish /Mexican site? And if there is any validity to the story of Waltz and a partner finding a placer site shortly before the lode mine does that mean Waltz prospected the Dutchman out? What about all the stories of it being a Spanish/Mexican mine that was shown to him by Spanish or Mexicans (one of the common or agreed upon points between Thomas/Bicknell and Holmes)? Did Waltz find it all by himself? Did his prospecting get him in the right area and he found a mine being worked by others and kill them out right? If so don’t both the Thomas and Holmes versions suffer considerably?
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Changing Stories
Dr. Glover and S.C.,
I have always considered Mitchell a good read, but have never taken him seriously concerning the LDM.
By 1953, Mitchell's story had become:
"A month later Jacob Walz reappeared in Florence looking for someone to make a dry washer or rocker small enough to be packed on the back of a burro. He was directed to another German known only as Frank, who was making his living doing odd jobs of carpenter work around Florence. While the placer machine was being completed Walz told the carpenter he had found some very rich placer gravel near Iron mountain on a branch of Pinto creek and that he was prospecting upstream to find the vein from which the gold came."
He than said:
"Old Frank, who later lived in the Pioneers' Home in Prescott, said the location of the much hunted mine did not seem to be much of a secret in those days and that many old timers like himself knew that it was located somewhere on Pinto creek not far from Iron mountain."
The 1953 book by Mitchell, "Lost Mines And Buried Treasures" does not mention any "Goldfield" connection to the story of the LDM.
Mitchell gives us his source for this information, but does not mention where his earlier story originated. As S.C. mentions, that remains pure conjecture.
The Goldfield story, as he tells it, is not mentioned by any other early Dutch Hunter. A good deal of his stories are just fiction, based on legend,
IMHO.
I don't think I would ever carry a John D. Mitchell book as reference material into the Superstition Mountains.
On the other hand, my copy of Dr. Glover's book is always in my pack. I could use a new copy. Signed, of course. It would really be nice to see some hard back "special" editions. 
Respectfully,
Joe
I have always considered Mitchell a good read, but have never taken him seriously concerning the LDM.
By 1953, Mitchell's story had become:
"A month later Jacob Walz reappeared in Florence looking for someone to make a dry washer or rocker small enough to be packed on the back of a burro. He was directed to another German known only as Frank, who was making his living doing odd jobs of carpenter work around Florence. While the placer machine was being completed Walz told the carpenter he had found some very rich placer gravel near Iron mountain on a branch of Pinto creek and that he was prospecting upstream to find the vein from which the gold came."
He than said:
"Old Frank, who later lived in the Pioneers' Home in Prescott, said the location of the much hunted mine did not seem to be much of a secret in those days and that many old timers like himself knew that it was located somewhere on Pinto creek not far from Iron mountain."
The 1953 book by Mitchell, "Lost Mines And Buried Treasures" does not mention any "Goldfield" connection to the story of the LDM.
Mitchell gives us his source for this information, but does not mention where his earlier story originated. As S.C. mentions, that remains pure conjecture.
The Goldfield story, as he tells it, is not mentioned by any other early Dutch Hunter. A good deal of his stories are just fiction, based on legend,
IMHO.
I don't think I would ever carry a John D. Mitchell book as reference material into the Superstition Mountains.
On the other hand, my copy of Dr. Glover's book is always in my pack. I could use a new copy. Signed, of course. It would really be nice to see some hard back "special" editions. Respectfully,
Joe
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Joe,
When thinking about Mitchell I always ignore the 1953 book. My understanding from talking with John D’s son was that the first book came about slowly based on years of research and searching and knocking about the deserts. As I understand it there was never any intention of Mitchell to publish his work. But, Mitchell was a friend of Milton Rose’s father who was also a lost mine buff. They used to sit talking tales, stories, history, adventures and so forth about the frontier and lost mines. Apparently Mitchell had the resources to publish a book and from Mitchell’s knowledge and the Rose resources the first book was born. (A note -- as often happens when two friend go into business together the venture lead to a falling out between them.) Greg is the best source for just how the first came about and the role of Rose, as my material in this area is second hand.
The first book was successful. Further many of Mitchell’s stories appeared in Desert Magazine. Later (as I understand it) Desert Magazine wanted a second book and this time it was on a deadline. Mitchell had been adding to his adventures and these new ones appeared in the second book. But, I have always thought that in some areas Mitchell’s second book is less reliable than his first one as it was done to meet a contract.
As far as the Dutchman is concerned, the difference between the two accounts in books one and two is one of night and day. The first one has bits and pieces of very good info. The second one is curious and I have wondered if it does not reflect the 30 plus years of Mitchell’s own failed searching for the mine. For some searchers after many years of not finding it they come to the conclusion that afteall they HAVE solved the mystery -- just no gold -- that they now realize where it is, but never get back to it, or that it has been found and is now a worked out hole, or that they have heard about someone else who knew where it is/was and this solves the mystery for them. Perhaps Mitchell was one of these, especially the last.
So, based on the fact that Mitchell was writing his second book for a commercial publisher and meeting that person’s demands, and that I see a certain frustration in that second account I pretty much dismiss Book Two’s accounting.
When thinking about Mitchell I always ignore the 1953 book. My understanding from talking with John D’s son was that the first book came about slowly based on years of research and searching and knocking about the deserts. As I understand it there was never any intention of Mitchell to publish his work. But, Mitchell was a friend of Milton Rose’s father who was also a lost mine buff. They used to sit talking tales, stories, history, adventures and so forth about the frontier and lost mines. Apparently Mitchell had the resources to publish a book and from Mitchell’s knowledge and the Rose resources the first book was born. (A note -- as often happens when two friend go into business together the venture lead to a falling out between them.) Greg is the best source for just how the first came about and the role of Rose, as my material in this area is second hand.
The first book was successful. Further many of Mitchell’s stories appeared in Desert Magazine. Later (as I understand it) Desert Magazine wanted a second book and this time it was on a deadline. Mitchell had been adding to his adventures and these new ones appeared in the second book. But, I have always thought that in some areas Mitchell’s second book is less reliable than his first one as it was done to meet a contract.
As far as the Dutchman is concerned, the difference between the two accounts in books one and two is one of night and day. The first one has bits and pieces of very good info. The second one is curious and I have wondered if it does not reflect the 30 plus years of Mitchell’s own failed searching for the mine. For some searchers after many years of not finding it they come to the conclusion that afteall they HAVE solved the mystery -- just no gold -- that they now realize where it is, but never get back to it, or that it has been found and is now a worked out hole, or that they have heard about someone else who knew where it is/was and this solves the mystery for them. Perhaps Mitchell was one of these, especially the last.
So, based on the fact that Mitchell was writing his second book for a commercial publisher and meeting that person’s demands, and that I see a certain frustration in that second account I pretty much dismiss Book Two’s accounting.
interesting clues
I think the directions were given for the Northern approuch to the mine and the directions to the Southern approuch were confused and inter twined togather so much that nobody could find diddly with them...I think the ORIGINAL direction were to take this road to this point, you will see this and this. At this point take the trail into the mountains until you see this and this, then look for and take this wash or gully up and around the mountain until you find this and this. Then you are on the site look for it "the mine" I think this is about what happened here. Bill
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The New, and Improved Version?
Dr. Glover,
I have never looked into the history of John Mitchell. I have no doubt that you and just about everyone else on this forum could tell me a great deal that I don't know. What I do know, is that there is a great deal of fiction in all of his stories, and I don't find fault in that style. He was selling books
after all.
The thing that I appreciate in story tellers, historians and politicians, is consistency. In the case of the "story teller", a little flight of fantasy is to be expected, and forgiven. While what I "appreciate" and what I expect are two different things, I like those who are dabbling in historical stories to keep their facts straight. I don't expect I will ever see you change your "facts" to meet a deadline or sell your books.
Like Wyatt.....changing his posts, or his story, you end up with no one believing anything you have said, or ever will say. You will have no trouble seeing how this applies to the current Presidential race.
As I said, I don't believe I will carry Mitchell's book into the Superstitions to use as refference material.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
Respectfully,
Joe
I have never looked into the history of John Mitchell. I have no doubt that you and just about everyone else on this forum could tell me a great deal that I don't know. What I do know, is that there is a great deal of fiction in all of his stories, and I don't find fault in that style. He was selling books
after all.
The thing that I appreciate in story tellers, historians and politicians, is consistency. In the case of the "story teller", a little flight of fantasy is to be expected, and forgiven. While what I "appreciate" and what I expect are two different things, I like those who are dabbling in historical stories to keep their facts straight. I don't expect I will ever see you change your "facts" to meet a deadline or sell your books.
Like Wyatt.....changing his posts, or his story, you end up with no one believing anything you have said, or ever will say. You will have no trouble seeing how this applies to the current Presidential race.
As I said, I don't believe I will carry Mitchell's book into the Superstitions to use as refference material.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
Respectfully,
Joe
interesting clues
If Waltz died in 1892 and had been deathly ill for a year and goldfield wasn,t discovered until 1892; HOW could the Walz have had anything to do with it?? Man he sure got around, didn,t he? In the early days of phinix I beleive there were some German,s hired to dig some water canals from the salt river out to irrigate the crops of some of the farmers land. Bill
In the early days of phinix I beleive there were some German,s hired to dig some water canals from the salt river out to irrigate the crops of some of the farmers land. Bill-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Take Another Look
Bill,
You need to take another look at the posts concerning Goldfield. No one is saying that Waltz was in "Goldfield". There is little doubt that the mines in Goldfield were old workings when the first claims were filed.
Respectfully,
Joe
You need to take another look at the posts concerning Goldfield. No one is saying that Waltz was in "Goldfield". There is little doubt that the mines in Goldfield were old workings when the first claims were filed.
Respectfully,
Joe
cover mine
Joe; can you narrate about what was in gold field at the discovery time??? My sources tell me there was just a wagon wheel mark, out there?? Whatever the spanish/mexi working were there must have pinched out or been awful poor for them to leave them for the mountain work or the mountains were so much richer. NOW Bill MINER of miner needle fame was supposed to have found some entremely rich placer over near a cliff shaped like a ship,s bow there some where,s . He was jumped by indian,s and was so busy getting away he lost his directions. He ran all the way to californis and led a big party back but could not find his cliff,s bow again. He led the party over some of the richest gold field,s in arizona and his party almost hung him before his oddesy was over. One of the party named miner,s needle in riddicule of him. Later some of the leaders of the party came back and JUST found the rich gold fields. YOU are right the words were pre gold field days, I didn,t sqeeze them enough to get the meaning there. Bill
Whatever the spanish/mexi working were there must have pinched out or been awful poor for them to leave them for the mountain work or the mountains were so much richer. NOW Bill MINER of miner needle fame was supposed to have found some entremely rich placer over near a cliff shaped like a ship,s bow there some where,s . He was jumped by indian,s and was so busy getting away he lost his directions. He ran all the way to californis and led a big party back but could not find his cliff,s bow again. He led the party over some of the richest gold field,s in arizona and his party almost hung him before his oddesy was over. One of the party named miner,s needle in riddicule of him. Later some of the leaders of the party came back and JUST found the rich gold fields. YOU are right the words were pre gold field days, I didn,t sqeeze them enough to get the meaning there. Bill -
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Goldfield
Bill,
There are others on this forum who can tell you a great deal more about Goldfield than I, but I have read a little.
Lewis H. Eddy wrote a few letters to the Phoenix Herald and Republican, around 1893. In one of them he describes Goldfield as being "in the Superstitions and its surroundings."
He writes: "Zigzaggin over the hills one day with his gun on his shoulder looking for game, J.R. Morse kicked out from a ledge, with the toe of his shoe, a piece of rock which has proven to be the foundation of Goldfield and give a reputation to the great Superstition.....It was the lodestone which drew him to the discovery of the Black Queen, the Black King, the Tom Thumb, the Mother Hubbard and the Mammoth, the five claims which he and his partners sold for $20,000."
As to what it looked like prior to these claims, he writes: "Over on the north side of this wonderful mountain so peculiar in shape, standing like the ruins of some great walled city with its tall spires and huge monuments, there has been discovered an ancient mining camp. Whether this mining was done by the Indians and Mexicans of the last century, or whether the operations date back to years when de Vaca and Black Stephen started from the coast of Florida to find the gold fields toward the setting sun, may never be known. It is certain, however, that there are shafts and tunnels and drifts and stopes and the clearly-defined walls of a great mine. On the dumps are found tons and tons of rock which without doubt came out of these workings."
I took the time to give you a little taste of what can be found in, "Arizona: The Last Frontier" by, Joseph Miller, because you may not be able to find the book.
Respectfully,
Joe
There are others on this forum who can tell you a great deal more about Goldfield than I, but I have read a little.
Lewis H. Eddy wrote a few letters to the Phoenix Herald and Republican, around 1893. In one of them he describes Goldfield as being "in the Superstitions and its surroundings."
He writes: "Zigzaggin over the hills one day with his gun on his shoulder looking for game, J.R. Morse kicked out from a ledge, with the toe of his shoe, a piece of rock which has proven to be the foundation of Goldfield and give a reputation to the great Superstition.....It was the lodestone which drew him to the discovery of the Black Queen, the Black King, the Tom Thumb, the Mother Hubbard and the Mammoth, the five claims which he and his partners sold for $20,000."
As to what it looked like prior to these claims, he writes: "Over on the north side of this wonderful mountain so peculiar in shape, standing like the ruins of some great walled city with its tall spires and huge monuments, there has been discovered an ancient mining camp. Whether this mining was done by the Indians and Mexicans of the last century, or whether the operations date back to years when de Vaca and Black Stephen started from the coast of Florida to find the gold fields toward the setting sun, may never be known. It is certain, however, that there are shafts and tunnels and drifts and stopes and the clearly-defined walls of a great mine. On the dumps are found tons and tons of rock which without doubt came out of these workings."
I took the time to give you a little taste of what can be found in, "Arizona: The Last Frontier" by, Joseph Miller, because you may not be able to find the book.
Respectfully,
Joe