Anyone have comments on the drawing Waltz was suppose to have given to Reiney a month or so before he died? Since it is the only one we have a copy of, despite rumors of more, perhaps we should work off the assumption it is the only one he drew. If so can any conclusions be drawn from what we do have? I took a picture of that saddle by accident a number of years ago while flying over the Supes in a heliocopter. I didn't realize what I had until much later, mainly because I had never seen the drawing. My view has always been that verbal directions accompanied the drawing. If that is correct, they were simple and short. Go to the saddle, turn.........., go to the canyon before the saddle or behind it, turn........, there you will find my mine. Since no markings denoting a mine are on the drawing, I think that is the way to approach it.
Has anyone else given this drawing any consideration?
The Waltz Drawing
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Nicoh,
Page 87 of Helen Corbin's, The Curse of The Dutchman's Gold.
It is not a map, but a drawing. I think Jim Bark may have been the source, but I don't know that for a fact. Someone in this forum will be able to enlighten us both, I am sure. I thought it might be a good topic for the members. We are getting views, but your's is the first reply. Seems like the forum has been silenced by national events.
Page 87 of Helen Corbin's, The Curse of The Dutchman's Gold.
It is not a map, but a drawing. I think Jim Bark may have been the source, but I don't know that for a fact. Someone in this forum will be able to enlighten us both, I am sure. I thought it might be a good topic for the members. We are getting views, but your's is the first reply. Seems like the forum has been silenced by national events.
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Fri Nov 15, 2002 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe Tom Glover's book also talks about the drawing. I'm not looking at the book right now, but seems to me (according to Glover) it was one of several drawings, and you needed all of them for any of it to make sense. Rhiney lost the other drawings while drunk. And I think verbal directions were supposed to be needed, too.
Drawing
Joe asked of the history and dissemination of the "drawing" and I have to say that I do not know. If it was something Rhoiney had, then it could be part of a set. And probably had corresponding istructions. Were those set to paper or only "oral" it is hard to say. But, it goes back to the question "Is THAT particular drawing genuine?" We do not know for sure where it came from. Did Bark get it from Rhiney? Or Gottfried? Or Hermann? Or did someone else? I would really like to know the story behind it. Again, it goes back to the question - "Is it genuine?"
However, let's pretend it is... Then what does it show? From the shape of Weavers Needle, I would say it shows a saddle between two moiuntains or hills somewhere to the northwest of Weavers Needle. But not as far northwest as Black Mesa. More south. The lines on the drawing are probably draws or washes. Maybe it is as Joe suggests. Find the saddle. Then follow the simple directions Waltz gave to them... which - unfortunately - we do not know.
However, let's pretend it is... Then what does it show? From the shape of Weavers Needle, I would say it shows a saddle between two moiuntains or hills somewhere to the northwest of Weavers Needle. But not as far northwest as Black Mesa. More south. The lines on the drawing are probably draws or washes. Maybe it is as Joe suggests. Find the saddle. Then follow the simple directions Waltz gave to them... which - unfortunately - we do not know.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
S.C.,
It really surprised me that LDM did not let us in on the source of this drawing, once you failed me. I have come to depend on you for reliable information. Thought for sure you would come up with this one. Makes me wonder if there is any validity to the drawing. The thing that makes me believe it's legit, is the fact that it shows no mine. If you were going to create a fake, wouldn't you put an x, oro or something on it?
Are you quite certain we don't know the simple directions Waltz gave to Julia? It would be nice to have that information. You would then - of course - have to know the correct saddle.
Joe
It really surprised me that LDM did not let us in on the source of this drawing, once you failed me. I have come to depend on you for reliable information. Thought for sure you would come up with this one. Makes me wonder if there is any validity to the drawing. The thing that makes me believe it's legit, is the fact that it shows no mine. If you were going to create a fake, wouldn't you put an x, oro or something on it?
Are you quite certain we don't know the simple directions Waltz gave to Julia? It would be nice to have that information. You would then - of course - have to know the correct saddle.
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Wiz,
I don't think implied works here. Seems like what I said was, " I took a picture of that saddle by accident a number of years ago while flying over the Supes. I didn't realize what I had untill much later, mainly because I had never seen the drawing." Since there are so many saddles which match that drawing, something else must have convinced me that this is the correct one. Now I could let you know which saddle I believe is the right one, but since there are so many, I could be wrong and I would not be comfortable giving you incorrect information. Suppose I did and you tried to make that climb and fell from the cliffs, how would I feel then?
Joe
I don't think implied works here. Seems like what I said was, " I took a picture of that saddle by accident a number of years ago while flying over the Supes. I didn't realize what I had untill much later, mainly because I had never seen the drawing." Since there are so many saddles which match that drawing, something else must have convinced me that this is the correct one. Now I could let you know which saddle I believe is the right one, but since there are so many, I could be wrong and I would not be comfortable giving you incorrect information. Suppose I did and you tried to make that climb and fell from the cliffs, how would I feel then?
Joe
OK, I think I'm a little confused about which drawing we're calling "The Waltz Drawing". I'm thinking of two:
1 - The map that Chuck Kenworthy used in his "treasure secrets of the lost dutchman" book, kind of a line drawing that's supposed to point out a filled-in funnel mine on a promontory north of Bluff Spring Mtn;
2 - A drawing on a piece of notebook paper, very simple, with an "X" on it. Tom Glover said this one was part of a set that Rhiney lost while drunk. Not the "Dick Holmes map", but sort of like it.
As I recall there's a Weaver's Needle-like thing on both maps.
Are you guys talking about one of these, or another one entirely?
1 - The map that Chuck Kenworthy used in his "treasure secrets of the lost dutchman" book, kind of a line drawing that's supposed to point out a filled-in funnel mine on a promontory north of Bluff Spring Mtn;
2 - A drawing on a piece of notebook paper, very simple, with an "X" on it. Tom Glover said this one was part of a set that Rhiney lost while drunk. Not the "Dick Holmes map", but sort of like it.
As I recall there's a Weaver's Needle-like thing on both maps.
Are you guys talking about one of these, or another one entirely?
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Wiz,
If you read the postings on this subject, Nicoh was just as confused. I gave him the source in the third reply. I will give it again in case there is a problem. Page 87 of Helen Corbin's "The Curse of The Dutchman's Gold".
LDM,
Somehow I knew you would come thru with some kind of verification. Do you know if Bark mentions this particular drawing in his notes? Thanks.
The saddle in question is very close to the two stone monuments I found twenty-five years ago. It is also just below that saddle, that artifacts which Waltz would have carried with him, were found a few years ago. While true that others would also have these same type of unique artifacts, it would be a limited few and remains, due to the terrain and a substantial number of other well known clues, quite a coincidence. I am sure Ron has seen a view very close to the Dutchman's Saddle from the Iron Mt. area. I don't think tying his claim into the Waltz drawing would be that difficult. Others, I am just as sure, could do the same thing. I am fairly certain there is no speculation in this reply.
Joe
If you read the postings on this subject, Nicoh was just as confused. I gave him the source in the third reply. I will give it again in case there is a problem. Page 87 of Helen Corbin's "The Curse of The Dutchman's Gold".
LDM,
Somehow I knew you would come thru with some kind of verification. Do you know if Bark mentions this particular drawing in his notes? Thanks.
The saddle in question is very close to the two stone monuments I found twenty-five years ago. It is also just below that saddle, that artifacts which Waltz would have carried with him, were found a few years ago. While true that others would also have these same type of unique artifacts, it would be a limited few and remains, due to the terrain and a substantial number of other well known clues, quite a coincidence. I am sure Ron has seen a view very close to the Dutchman's Saddle from the Iron Mt. area. I don't think tying his claim into the Waltz drawing would be that difficult. Others, I am just as sure, could do the same thing. I am fairly certain there is no speculation in this reply.
Joe
Re: The Waltz Drawing
OK, I dug out my copy of "Curse" and looked at page 87. This is the same drawing that Kenworthy used. Odd that this map isn't in the map section of this web site.Joe Ribaudo wrote:Wiz,
If you read the postings on this subject, Nicoh was just as confused. I gave him the source in the third reply. I will give it again in case there is a problem. Page 87 of Helen Corbin's "The Curse of The Dutchman's Gold".
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Wiz,
It is not a map, but a drawing. It requires verbal directions or addtional drawings. I think he gave simple directions. Enter at.........you will see this picture. Go to the canyon below the saddle. Turn........or climb into the saddle.........follow the trail to my mine.
Joe
It is not a map, but a drawing. It requires verbal directions or addtional drawings. I think he gave simple directions. Enter at.........you will see this picture. Go to the canyon below the saddle. Turn........or climb into the saddle.........follow the trail to my mine.
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Wiz,
I suppose you could compare the two. I think there is a difference, but it's not really important what you call it. The one major difference is that the perfil mapa shows a final location and is much more detailed. It is similar in the fact that if you follow it, you will find nothing.
Joe
I suppose you could compare the two. I think there is a difference, but it's not really important what you call it. The one major difference is that the perfil mapa shows a final location and is much more detailed. It is similar in the fact that if you follow it, you will find nothing.
Joe
Since we are are on the subject of sketches and drawings...how many of you folks know that there is a sketch out there attributed to Joe Deering as the source?
I have seen it...it simply shows the outline of Weavers Needle from the vicinity of the Deering trail. Where on the trail I have no idea...but it is an intriguing bit of LDM history.
I have seen it...it simply shows the outline of Weavers Needle from the vicinity of the Deering trail. Where on the trail I have no idea...but it is an intriguing bit of LDM history.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Peter,
Do you put any trust in the Joe Deering story? Seems like a lot of inconsistency turns up in that particular legend. Makes me a little leery of the whole story.
Joe
Do you put any trust in the Joe Deering story? Seems like a lot of inconsistency turns up in that particular legend. Makes me a little leery of the whole story.
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Peter,
Deering said his partner would be there in a couple of weeks. They
had been in Arizona only a short time and had been in Prescot for less then a year. He worked in Danial Brown's saloon for a short time. We can assume one week or so.
During that time the men became such good friends that Joe told him the facts of his discovery. He said he was not telling anyone else. He went to work in the mine and was killed in the first week. During that week he became best friends with John Chewning and told him everything concerning the mine he had found, short of it's exact location.
According to the Coroners Inquest, dated Sept. 27, 1885:
Question to James Green. Did you know Joe Deering in his lifetime?
Answer. Yes sir: About 2 years.
James Green knew him for 2 years, so where is the story of James Green,a miner, and his search for the mine? Did he tell two men he knew for only a few weeks something he would not tell a man he knew for two years? It's, of course, possible but it does not seem that Deering was holding his cards close to his chest.
Have I related the facts, as known? If so, is this story plausible to you?
I have not seen the sketch you speak of, so I can't comment on it's worth.
Since you seem to place a lot of confidence in it's authenticity and you wonder if many have seen it, I assume it has not been published. Since you are looking for it's exact location, we can assume whoever has had it since 1885, could not locate anything by using it. That's a long time to be looking and took a number of Dutch Hunters. Let's hope you are the last one in that line. Something else comes to mind: Did you just stumble on this mountain or did something, other then the drawing, bring you there?
Can you disclose what brought you into this area, or would that compromise your search?
Joe
Deering said his partner would be there in a couple of weeks. They
had been in Arizona only a short time and had been in Prescot for less then a year. He worked in Danial Brown's saloon for a short time. We can assume one week or so.
During that time the men became such good friends that Joe told him the facts of his discovery. He said he was not telling anyone else. He went to work in the mine and was killed in the first week. During that week he became best friends with John Chewning and told him everything concerning the mine he had found, short of it's exact location.
According to the Coroners Inquest, dated Sept. 27, 1885:
Question to James Green. Did you know Joe Deering in his lifetime?
Answer. Yes sir: About 2 years.
James Green knew him for 2 years, so where is the story of James Green,a miner, and his search for the mine? Did he tell two men he knew for only a few weeks something he would not tell a man he knew for two years? It's, of course, possible but it does not seem that Deering was holding his cards close to his chest.
Have I related the facts, as known? If so, is this story plausible to you?
I have not seen the sketch you speak of, so I can't comment on it's worth.
Since you seem to place a lot of confidence in it's authenticity and you wonder if many have seen it, I assume it has not been published. Since you are looking for it's exact location, we can assume whoever has had it since 1885, could not locate anything by using it. That's a long time to be looking and took a number of Dutch Hunters. Let's hope you are the last one in that line. Something else comes to mind: Did you just stumble on this mountain or did something, other then the drawing, bring you there?
Can you disclose what brought you into this area, or would that compromise your search?
Joe
Joe
My understanding is that there seem to be TWO different versions of the Deering partner story.
The one you quote derives from Sims Ely's THE LOST DUTCHMAN MINE. In this version he relates that he is waiting for a partner to arrive and that they are both going to open the walled up tunnel that Deering found following the old "soldiers" trail. Daniel Brown is a saloon keeper and Sims seems to derive much of his information from this particular source.
However, I have several problems with this version of the story.
1) Sims mispells Deering
2) His 1881 date is wrong. The real date is probablyAug?sept 1885.
3) The source quoted here was NOT the principle source of the Deering legend and Sims certainly knew that.
The second version of the Deering story comes directly from Jim Bark.
It is also somewhat substantiated by Brownie Holmes. In this version Deering is waiting 30 days for his partnership agreement with a fellow in Colorado to expire. He relates much of the story about finding the workings to John Chunning before he is killed in a mine accident. What we have, basically, is Chunnings story about Deering.
I'll put my money on the validity of the Chunning story. He might have been crazy, but something about the fellow using rope ladders to climb up and down cliffs and ledges up on Tortilla for 20 years rings true. Chunning certainly beleived in Deering's information.
Has it occurred to you that Deering simply didnt tell James Green what he confided in Chunning?
The sketch is a very simple drawing (my simple mind likes simple things...lol). Its not going to locate the mine for anyone..and the Needle looks like it does in the drawing from a wide area. What it does do is narrow ones search down a LITTLE...if one has other interests in the area...it simply is another small piece in a very large puzzle.
As to the mountain that I beleive the mine is on. I beleive the preponderance of the evidence known to me places the LDM/Deering mine there. I could well be wrong...but obviously do not think so.
That said, it is the most God-awful rough place imaginable and I can testify that certain parts of the place are dam creepy. Joe Deering was right...as far as the general description goes.
My understanding is that there seem to be TWO different versions of the Deering partner story.
The one you quote derives from Sims Ely's THE LOST DUTCHMAN MINE. In this version he relates that he is waiting for a partner to arrive and that they are both going to open the walled up tunnel that Deering found following the old "soldiers" trail. Daniel Brown is a saloon keeper and Sims seems to derive much of his information from this particular source.
However, I have several problems with this version of the story.
1) Sims mispells Deering
2) His 1881 date is wrong. The real date is probablyAug?sept 1885.
3) The source quoted here was NOT the principle source of the Deering legend and Sims certainly knew that.
The second version of the Deering story comes directly from Jim Bark.
It is also somewhat substantiated by Brownie Holmes. In this version Deering is waiting 30 days for his partnership agreement with a fellow in Colorado to expire. He relates much of the story about finding the workings to John Chunning before he is killed in a mine accident. What we have, basically, is Chunnings story about Deering.
I'll put my money on the validity of the Chunning story. He might have been crazy, but something about the fellow using rope ladders to climb up and down cliffs and ledges up on Tortilla for 20 years rings true. Chunning certainly beleived in Deering's information.
Has it occurred to you that Deering simply didnt tell James Green what he confided in Chunning?
The sketch is a very simple drawing (my simple mind likes simple things...lol). Its not going to locate the mine for anyone..and the Needle looks like it does in the drawing from a wide area. What it does do is narrow ones search down a LITTLE...if one has other interests in the area...it simply is another small piece in a very large puzzle.
As to the mountain that I beleive the mine is on. I beleive the preponderance of the evidence known to me places the LDM/Deering mine there. I could well be wrong...but obviously do not think so.
That said, it is the most God-awful rough place imaginable and I can testify that certain parts of the place are dam creepy. Joe Deering was right...as far as the general description goes.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Waltz Drawing
Peter,
I don't think dates and names are so important in the Ely book. The story was probably related to Bark who then told Ely. Spelling and dates were less important then the facts of the story. I mention in my post the possibility that he did not tell James Green about his discovery. For a man who told two basic strangers everything in two weeks or so, it seems likely he would tell something to a man he had known for two years. You could assume he knew, but didn't like, Green. From the testimony, Green seems to have felt some empathy for Deering. I have read the different versions and feel they may have been developed at a later date. If the Joe Deering story is true, then the mine should have been found by Chewning. He claims there are two trails to the mine and it would appear that you are following in the footsteps of Chewning. You also have the drawing you have mentioned. The trail is halfway up the side of a mountain and runs for at least six miles. No needle in a haystack, in my opinion. There are many, many creepy places in the Superstitions. I am sure we all have our own favorite creepy spots. All conjecture, so I could be wrong.
Joe
I don't think dates and names are so important in the Ely book. The story was probably related to Bark who then told Ely. Spelling and dates were less important then the facts of the story. I mention in my post the possibility that he did not tell James Green about his discovery. For a man who told two basic strangers everything in two weeks or so, it seems likely he would tell something to a man he had known for two years. You could assume he knew, but didn't like, Green. From the testimony, Green seems to have felt some empathy for Deering. I have read the different versions and feel they may have been developed at a later date. If the Joe Deering story is true, then the mine should have been found by Chewning. He claims there are two trails to the mine and it would appear that you are following in the footsteps of Chewning. You also have the drawing you have mentioned. The trail is halfway up the side of a mountain and runs for at least six miles. No needle in a haystack, in my opinion. There are many, many creepy places in the Superstitions. I am sure we all have our own favorite creepy spots. All conjecture, so I could be wrong.
Joe
<<If the Joe Deering story is true, then the mine should have been found by Chewning>>
Wrong.
Chunning (will you please spell the mans name correctly?)began his search a decade after the Deering episode...and only when he heard rumors of Thomas, Petrasch, and Holmes looking for the mine..on info they received from Waltz. He surmised that the Deering and Waltz mine were one in the same and thus began his search.
Problem was John Chunning was looking for a pit filled in with debris but still visible...not the covered over working that Waltz left.
Therefore your supposition that the LDM should have been found by Chunning because of Deerings info may not have taken into account the fact the workings were now hidden.
I do not agree with you as far as a researcher getting dates wrong, names mispelled and "facts" not mattering. If someone puts out shoddily researched work (ie: cant spell for instance) it sets my alarm bells ringing and I ask the following.."if this person can not get even a simple date right
what else might be wrong with this picture?". Hence I am skeptical of the
Ely account. You also have to take into account that Ely was an old man who's memory may have been faltering. In addition, the Bark (Spangler) family asked him to mask and camoflauge some of the clues in his book.
(For example...does anyone out there think the Apache Jack story really took place on todays named "Black Mountain"?...lol But here we have an
entire cog in LDM legend repeated ad nauseum and researchers to this day continue to repeat the same errors made in the past).
Wrong.
Chunning (will you please spell the mans name correctly?)began his search a decade after the Deering episode...and only when he heard rumors of Thomas, Petrasch, and Holmes looking for the mine..on info they received from Waltz. He surmised that the Deering and Waltz mine were one in the same and thus began his search.
Problem was John Chunning was looking for a pit filled in with debris but still visible...not the covered over working that Waltz left.
Therefore your supposition that the LDM should have been found by Chunning because of Deerings info may not have taken into account the fact the workings were now hidden.
I do not agree with you as far as a researcher getting dates wrong, names mispelled and "facts" not mattering. If someone puts out shoddily researched work (ie: cant spell for instance) it sets my alarm bells ringing and I ask the following.."if this person can not get even a simple date right
what else might be wrong with this picture?". Hence I am skeptical of the
Ely account. You also have to take into account that Ely was an old man who's memory may have been faltering. In addition, the Bark (Spangler) family asked him to mask and camoflauge some of the clues in his book.
(For example...does anyone out there think the Apache Jack story really took place on todays named "Black Mountain"?...lol But here we have an
entire cog in LDM legend repeated ad nauseum and researchers to this day continue to repeat the same errors made in the past).
Reply
Ely was indeed in his twilight years. Though he had help, no doubt his memory (even with the aid of Bark's information) was not 100%. And, even if it was up to par, Peter is correct - the Bark/Spangler family asked Ely to mask things.
Given that, ponder this.... Peter points out the Apache Jack story. If one goes through Ely's book they will note that the Apache Jack story is virtually the only "clue" (if you can call it that...) that had any substance - i.e., a location and a direction. Everything else is vague. Though after reading the book one might think they have received many clues - but upon closer examination, those clues are very vague.
Now... if the Apache Jack story was explicit - and the Bark family wanted things masked - then is the location mentioned correct? Or even the "direction" to which Apache Jack waved his arm?
That being the case, if that is "masked" then what else is? It goes back to accepting source material. Bark might have errors in his "Notes" but the information there is a better place to start than Ely's material.
Given that, ponder this.... Peter points out the Apache Jack story. If one goes through Ely's book they will note that the Apache Jack story is virtually the only "clue" (if you can call it that...) that had any substance - i.e., a location and a direction. Everything else is vague. Though after reading the book one might think they have received many clues - but upon closer examination, those clues are very vague.
Now... if the Apache Jack story was explicit - and the Bark family wanted things masked - then is the location mentioned correct? Or even the "direction" to which Apache Jack waved his arm?
That being the case, if that is "masked" then what else is? It goes back to accepting source material. Bark might have errors in his "Notes" but the information there is a better place to start than Ely's material.