2/7/20 Report - Cleaning Coins: Method for Cleaning Silver Cobs and Method for Cleaning Clad Coins.

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.

Typical Treasure Coast Beach Morning of 2/7

I took a look at the beach this morning and was not surprised at all.  The front beach has been building during the last few days.  The middle and back beaches have not been touched lately.

Typical Treasure Coast Beach Morning of 2/7. 

---


Alberto S. provided the tested the following method for cleaning clad coins and provided the instructions.

Rock Tumbler Used For Cleaning Clad Coins.

Photo by Alberto s.

I received a gift from my wife this past Christmas, a rock tumbler from Harbor Freight, I believe is the one you mentioned in previous posts. I finally decided to give a try using a recipe from a you tube video on the subject of cleaning clad found at the beach. 

Coins Tumbled For Two Hours.

Photo by Alberto S.

The recipe calls for a 2 hour pre-wash with water and regular fish tank gravel and then a 2 hour wash using table salt, dish washing liquid, vinegar and CLR which is the solution for removing calcium, lime and rust. I tried it on some nickels(one penny in the bunch) and the results were pretty good, see the photo above.

Same Coins After Second Two-Hour Wash.

Photo by Alberto S.

One thing I did  notice on another batch of nickels that if once removed from the tumbler after the second wash and the coins are not washed with fresh water soon after and removed from the gravel to dry they will develop some stains, which I think might be from the CLR solution not sure. Anyway, thank you for the tip about the tumbler, works really good.

Hope you  are having a great day.

Alberto S. 

---

Below is a method Bill P. describes for cleaning silver cobs.  I've also used it with good results.

Bill's Silver Cob Cleaning Method

Use this method at your own risk. This writer accepts no responsibility for misuse or ignorance or neglect for any person or party and for informational purposes only.

 This process uses diluted Muriatic Acid which is commonly used around swimming pools. It can be purchased pretty much anywhere pool chemicals are sold.

 A few precautions must be addressed first though. Here is a link to Bob Vila's Info on this acid https://www.bobvila.com/articles/muriatic-acid/ .

 As stated in the Bob Vila article, I cannot emphasize enough that water should NEVER be poured into acid to dilute it. The reverse is the only way it should be done...acid into water. This acronym should be in the forefront of your thoughts when using any acid...AAA - Always Add Acid!

 How to neutralize acid; baking soda neutralizes acid very quickly so make sure you have enough on hand.

 Muriatic acid is readily available at most home improvement stores in ½ and 1 gallon sizes. It is typically a 31% strength from the bottle. I generally cut this in half to roughly 15% strength and it seems to work perfectly but you may want to experiment (again, AAA).

 I suggest that you treat one cob at a time. I use a shot glass so not much acid is required. Place the appropriate amount of acid into the shot glass and gently place the cob into the container(no splashing please). Depending on how heavily it's encrusted, it should start fizzing immediately. It may take several treatments to dissolve the encrustation but in my experience once is enough.

 Remove the cob from the solution and if you only have one cob, neutralize the acid in the glass and on the cob at once. The cob will have a dull gray color.

 Next take a small amount of baking soda (not baking powder), place it in the palm of your hand, add a couple drops of water to make a paste. Then gently rub the cob between your fingers until a bright silver sheen is revealed. It's that simple.

 In the case of stubborn encrustation there is another method that works although not as reliable as the acid treatment. However it is much safer because there are no caustic chemicals involved.

 You will need baking soda, aluminum foil and hot tap water. Make a paste with the baking soda and water, fold a small piece of foil in half, fill the folded foil with the paste and sandwich the cob in between. The whole thing may become warm as the aluminum and baking soda react. There also may be some fizzing. Once this is complete, you polish the cob as previously stated.

 It is my belief that using electrolysis can damage a cob. Years ago I watched a video when the early 1715 salvors were attempting to clean clumps of encrusted cobs. They dumped the clumps into a tub and poured muriatic acid over all of it. I never saw the finished product I'm sure it was effective.

You may want to try this first on a common silver coin instead on a cob...for your own peace of mind.

Silver and copper are insoluable in dilute Muriatic acid at room temperature.

Give it a shot!

Bill P. 

---

I've used both of the methods described above with good results.  Most recently I cleaned some cobs using acid and baking soda.

I plan to post these instructions for easy access my reference list.

Source: MagicSeaWeed.com.

As you can see, the surf will increase a little this weekend.

The tides are getting higher too.

Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@comcast.net

11/8/19 Report - More Reales Being Auctioned. New Book on Coin Hoards. The Great Southern Treasury Hoard. Bigger Surf.

Written by the TreasureGuide for  the exclusive use of treaurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.

Lots from Bruce Ward Estate Auction

See Cargileauctions.com link below.

The Sedwick Coins Treasure Auction no. 26 has concluded, but many silver reales from the Bruce Ward estate is being auctioned by Cargile Auctions.

Online bidding has begun, but bidding will not close until Dec. 9.

Here is the link to the Cargile Auctions site.

http://www.cargileauctions.com/auction/350594/the-estate-of-bruce-ward/

And here is the link to the online auction catalog.

https://cargileauctions.hibid.com/catalog/189905/1715-spanish-fleet-coins-and-artifacts---the-estate-of-bruce-w/


Many of these are said to be in their original uncleaned condition.

---


Q. David Bowers tells CoinWeek about his new book, Lost and Found: Coin Hoards and Treaures.

Here is a brief excerpt from the article.


In numismatics, there are many stories of coin treasures that have come to light, most often under circumstances a bit less exciting than written in buccaneer lore, but often quite intriguing. Typically, notices of such finds have been reported first in newspapers or other popular periodicals, often with incomplete or inaccurate information. Then, if a numismatist were consulted, the facts might have been recorded.

Found coins were usually spent, sold, or otherwise scattered without any inventory being made of them. I have reviewed thousands of news accounts of robberies, finds of buried coins, losses of ships laden with coins, and the like, but only a tiny percentage of such narratives have any interesting or important numismatic information. The exceptions form many of the stories given in my book Lost and Found Coin Hoards and Treasures, now in its second edition...

You might want to read more of this.  Here is the link.

https://coinweek.com/coins/supplies/books-2/coin-hoards-treasures-and-troves-separating-truth-from-taradiddles/

I'm sure you will be able to get it through the library if you don't want to spend the money.

---

Talking about hoards, did you ever hear about the Great Southern Treasure Hoard?


Near the beginning of last month, CoinWeek traveled to NGC headquarters in Sarasota, Florida, to get a first look at the Great Southern Treasury Hoard of 13,000 New Orleans Mint Morgan dollars.

Coin dealer Jeff Garrett was instrumental in bringing this numismatic bonanza to the market, negotiating a deal with a family of hard money advocates to trade 13 U.S. Mint-sealed bags of Morgan dollars for approximately $1 million in gold bullion.

The family purchased the coins in the mid-1960s for an estimated cost of $1.30 per coin. That investment returned an estimated $76.92 per coin in 2019...

Here is the link for more about that.

https://coinweek.com/video-news/coinweek-video-jeff-garrett-and-the-great-southern-treasury-hoard-of-morgan-dollars/


$1 in 1965 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $8.15 in 2019, a difference of $7.15 over 54 years.  Not a bad investment, but without figuring it out exactly, I think you would get more if you put your money in the bank in 1965.  Interest rates at one point were up around 20%, if you can imagine that in todays near-zero interest rate environment.

Maybe you still would have enjoyed the coins more.

Interest Rates Over the Years.

---

When you see all of the cars on the road, it seems like nobody is where they want to be - otherwise they wouldn't be going somewhere else.

---

Source: MagicSeaWeed.com

Tomorrow the surf is supposed to be five to eight feet.  The tides won't help much though.

But look farther out.  A six to nine foot surf is predicted for next week.

Happy hunting,
Treasureguide@comcast.net.

9/19/15 Report - Surprising Results of Detector Test With Three Small Cobs. Tropical Storm Ida And Other Weather.

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.

Three Small Under Weight Cobs.

In the past I've talked a good bit about specific target training and tuning.  By that I mean learning the optimal detector settings for finding particular targets, and also tuning in the field for those specific targets.

If you are interested in finding small silver items like those shown above, you need to experiment with different detector settings to find the settings that are best.

These particular cobs are way under weight.  They were found on a beach near a 1715 wreck site. They lost much of the original material.  The one on the left is only about .015 ounces, and the other two around .02 ounces.  The second is actually a touch lighter than the third.  My scale isn't highly accurate for small weights like that.

When selecting test targets, I will often select those that are on the smaller side, assuming that if I can find the smaller ones I will have no trouble with the larger ones.

Size is much like depth in relation to signal strength.  Small items sound much, not exactly, like larger but deeper targets.

One thing I try to keep the same is the material.  If you want to find silver, test with silver.  You generally want test targets that are as similar to the desired targets as possible.  One possible exception, as I said, is size.  Again, I tend towards smaller test targets.

If you are going to hunt for a particular type of item, you want to know if your detector will detect it and what settings are required.  It is best to test your detector before going on a hunt so you have confidence that your detector will detect whatever you are hunting.  What a waste it is to spend hours hunting with a detector set up in a way that would not detect what you want to find if you were right on top of it.

I hadn't tested one my newest detector on small cobs and wanted to find out how it would do with those types of targets, and secondly, what settings would be best.  I had tested these test targets with a couple other detectors, and knew how they would perform, but I wanted to know how this detector would perform with the same test targets.

I took these items out to a space that I have cleaned out and often use as a test area.  I kept changing the settings and modes to see which worked best on these test targets.

My test area is not the easiest even though there is no ground mineralization.  There is a lot of ambient electrical interference to deal with that causes a lot of detector noise.  In this area, there are some inexpensive detectors that actually do better than some of the more expensive and powerful detectors because of the electrical interference.

Which of the above three test targets do you think gave the strongest signal?  You might well guess the first, which is both lightest and presents the smallest surface area.

Charles Garrett in his book Successful Coin Shooting, said that generally detectors are surface area detectors, and that mass makes little difference.  He suggested a way to prove that for yourself.  Take a coin and run your coil over it.  Then take a stack of the same coins and run your detector over it.  You should get about the same signal because the surface area that is presented to the coil is the same.

He threw that word "generally" in there, and that is a good thing, because I have found exceptions.  I haven't done a real precise experiment on that, but I have observed enough to feel confident about that.  There are times when thickness, or mass, seems to make a difference, though not a large one.

To answer the question, the first and third targets (as shown in the photo above) cause much stronger detector signals that the second one.  That is very consistent.  And it proves out with different detectors.

The first item, has a small surface area.  You can see that.  The photo accurately shows that.  It is however thicker than both the second and third items.

The second and third items are nearly the same weight, and one might be a bit thinner than the other, but it is not enough to be obvious from look or feel.

So what is it about the second item that produces a weaker signal?   I can't say for sure, but it does seem to be something other than surface area.  Perhaps it is the material, although the three cobs should not be very different.  They should have similar silver content.  Maybe they are a touch different though.

I've shown in the past that shape makes a big difference.  Detect a coin laying flat, and then turn it on edge and you'll probably notice a big difference in the signal.  On some detectors the difference will be greater than on others.

The second item does not appear to be shaped hugely different from the third item, but it is a little less round.  The first item is much less round than the second, but still produces a better signal even though it also presents a smaller surface area.

I've done experiments that show that angles and irregular surfaces make a difference.  A slanted surface may not produce a signal that is as strong as if the surface was flat and parallel to the surface of the coil.

The top surface of the small item is a little convex.  I don't know if that produces a better signal.

It is pretty complex.  I'd have to do a lot more experimenting before I could say exactly why the second items produces a much weaker signal than the other two.  At this point I just have some ideas.

The main thing I want to say today is that you should experiment with detectors and their various settings and relevant test targets before you go for a hunt.  Get to know what your detector will and will not do, and get to know the best settings.

---

Source; nhc.noaa.gov

We now have a named tropical storm, Ida.  Also a tropical depression, Nine.  And another disturbance up by Georgia.

I doubt we get much of anything from any of these, however there is a chance.  Both tropical depression nine and Ida will probably live and die out there in the Atlantic.

The disturbance up by Georgia might turn into something, but North Carolina has a better chance of getting something out of it than we do.

Right now the surf predications are for a slightly increase surf for mid week.  If you look out a week from Monday, they are predicting something like 4 - 7 feet.  That might be nice - if it actually happens.  I guess there is some chance, but I'm not betting on it.

Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@comcast.net

8/30/14 Report - Silver Cobs Metal Detector Test Continued With Results. Quartz Crystal Pendant.

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.BlogSpot.com.

Silver Quartz Crystal Pendant

Here is a beach find.  Oxidized silver and quartz with a tigers eye.

Notice the phantom in the quartz. 

I don't know how old it might be.


Now I'm going to pick up today where I left off yesterday.  I'm going to show you something new that might surprise you.  It also shows how specific you have to be about detector tests, particularly the types of targets you are interested in and the environments they are used in.  A number of factors have to be considered when selecting a detector for a particular job.

A lot of people seem to accept what they hear or accept the results of simple tests on clad coins that actually leave out a lot of important factors.  They think if detector A is a good detector or has a good reputation it is the detector to use.  The fact is, as I'll show today, it is much more complicated.  And as I showed yesterday, there are situations when an inexpensive detector will actually do a better job than a highly regarded more expensive detector.  The basic questions are, what do you want to find and where are you going to hunt.  I say those are basic questions, but to answer them well involves more factors than you might think.

If you haven't read yesterday's post yet, I recommend that you do that before continuing.

Here are the same small beach cobs that I used for the tests that I reported on yesterday.  The one on the left weighs about 0.4 grams, the next 0.5 grams, the next 0.6 grams, and the next 2.0 grams.  I will refer to these cobs going left to right as 1 - 4.



Four Treasure Coast 1715 Fleet Beach Cobs.  Three Half-Reales and One 1-Reale.

Yesterday I tested these in a high EMI environment using the Ace 250.  Today I'll report on my results using an Excalibur.

I used both discrimination mode and pinpoint mode for all my Excalibur tests.

Which cob do you think consistently produced the best (loudest and clearest) signal?  It was cob 3.  You might expect it to be cob 4.  I did.   But cob three consistently produced a signal that was a loud and distinct, and a slight bit better than cob 4.  That was true on many attempts varying the sweep speed, and sweeping at different directions.

Tests were done with the coil at the approximate same height over the cobs, and also at different heights to give a rough measure of depth.  By varying the height of the coil I essentially did a type of air test but with a sugar sand background and relatively high EMI environment.

In case you wondered, signal loudness and distinctness correlated with air-test depth.  In other words, cobs that produced a fainter signal when the coil was at the same height for all cobs, were detected only at smaller distances from the coil.  Those cobs that produced louder more distinct signals were detected at greater heights when the coil was raised.  So relative signal strength, as you might have suspected, is a decent (not perfect) measure of how deep a target would be detected.  That makes sense, but the test results did strongly support that conclusion.

Now the question is why did cob three, even though smaller by weight and presenting less surface area produce a louder signal.   I do not yet know.   Yesterday I suggested that one possibility could be different alloys or composition of the silver.  We know that the composition of cobs was regulated,  but we also know that there were some differences.

Surprisingly, cob 1 consistently produced a more distinct signal than cob 2 despite its smaller surface area.  It is thicker.  All other cobs produced better signals than cob 2 without exception.

Another reason could possibly be the ground under the cobs, but I changed where I did the tests and the results were the same.

The results did not change when I switched from discrimination to pin point mode. 

I often hunt in pin point or all metals mode.

Ordered by signal strength, it was cob 3, 4, 1 and last, 2.

Being in a high EMI environment, I varied my sensitivity.  I actually got slightly better signals with reduced sensitivity. 

Some people are afraid to reduce sensitivity.  I seldom reduce sensitivity and am accustomed to identifying signals in noise, but there are times to do it.

I always recommend testing your detector and settings with the type of target that you want to find and in the environment that you will be hunting before beginning to hunt.  I think these tests support that recommendation.  Things are not always simple, and if you want to optimize your detector and settings, do it in the environment and with the most desired targets.

When selecting a test target, Id select a smaller test target.  Generally if you are set for the smalls, you will find the larger targets too, whereas the other way around is not necessarily true.

A lot of people are running around with detector settings that would not detect the smaller cobs shown above if the cobs were laying on the surface with the detector coil right over them.  I know I have met people on the beach who were discriminating out anything that small.

As I showed yesterday using the Ace 250, these test cobs generally were identified as nickels.  That's not bad.

The best way to learn how to better understand and use your detector is to experiment.  What you read may or may not be true, and your detector and your environment might not be the same as those you read about. 


On the Treasure Coast we're back to a one-foot surf again.  Nothing much in the Atlantic either.  Just one disturbance down by Central America.

Get to know your detector better.

Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@Comcast.net

8/29/14 Report - Detector Test Using Silver Cobs in High EMI Environment. A Couple Tips For Detecting Junky Sites.

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.BlogSpot.com.

Four Treasure Coast 1715 Fleet Beach Cobs.  Three Half-Reales and One 1-Reale.

There are times when it is a good idea to try something new.  If you try something new there is a good chance that you will strike out, but you very well might learn something valuable in the process.

When you try a new site, the first visit might not be much more than a scouting trip or site preparation.   Too many people give up on a new site too quickly.  They do a little detecting and decide that there is nothing there or that the site is too junky.  Before giving up, they should analyze the situation, test different areas, and find out where things used to be and what might be there.

Sometimes on your first visit you'll be accomplishing a lot if you simply remove the surface trash.  That can be true on either a beach or inland site.

For trashy sites you might want to use a magnetic rake.  They are made for post-construction clean-ups, but you can use them for pre-detecting cleaning.  They come in a variety of types.  Below is a link that shows a few of those types.

http://www.moheco.com/magrake_magnetic_rakes.htm

Using a magnetic rake can really help you prepare a trashy site.  Trash can mask a lot of good targets so it is good to get rid of a lot of it.

And it is always a good idea to have a magnet like the one shown in the following video when you have to deal with nails and things like that.  I sometimes tape a magnet like this one to the handle end of my scoop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ2XQiljBF4

This procedure works very well.  You can waste a lot of time searching for a small screw or bit or iron. 

After pinpointing an iron item, pick it up with the magnet.  As you can tell if you carefully listen to the video, you can hear when an iron object gets picked up by the magnet. 

I've been noticing a lot of good potential land detecting sites lately. Keep your eyes open as you drive. 



I did some new tests.  I used the four silver cobs shown at the top of the post.  Left to right they weight about 0.4 grams, 0.5 grams, 0.6 grams and 2.0 grams.  All four are very much under weight for their denomination.  That is not unusual for beach cobs.

The first part of the test was conducted with the Ace 250, an inexpensive detector with target ID.  I've talked about that detector in the past.

The setting was a front yard where there is considerable electromagnetic interference from power lines, underground cables, etc.

I simply put the four cobs on the ground (didn't bury them) spaced apart about a foot.

When using the Ace all four cobs were easily detected, mostly being identified as nickels.  Two cobs jumped a little on the target ID - one one way and the other the other way. 

Here is where it starts to get interesting.  You would assume that the silver in all four cobs is of similar purity.  I know that might not be exactly the case, but I would not expect them to vary a lot.

But I got a hint of something interesting in this part of the test.  The heaviest cobs did not always give the best signal.  And the cobs presenting the most surface area did not always give the best signal. 

Using the Ace, the third cob from the right occasionally jumped into the pull tab range, while the second cob occasionally jumped from the nickel to foil ID range.

I repeated this process many times with different sweep speeds, slightly varying the height of the coil, and changing the centering of the coil.  Same results.  The smallest and largest of the two cobs without exception were identified as nickels.  Only the other two differed, one towards the upper end of the range and the other towards the lower.

I did not take this too seriously yet.  I then tested the same cobs with two other detectors.  In another post I'll discuss how that added to the evidence found in this part of the test.

What I did conclude from this first test is that it is not always the larger target or the target presenting the most surface area that creates the loudest signal.  Bigger is not always louder, even when the metal is the same (or nearly so).  These conclusions were supported using two other very different detectors.  Like I said, more on that some other time.

Another thing I concluded is that ( and not taking depth into account) the Ace worked as well as the Dual Surf PI and Excalibur for detecting these small surface cobs in this environment.  The Ace, which was operated with the default settings (not maximum sensitivity) was not as much affected by EMI and did as well as the other two detectors.

One thing I want to reiterate is the importance of testing detectors on specific targets and under specific circumstances.   Here you have a case where an inexpensive detector that some call a toy worked as well or better than much more expensive detectors. 

The results might change if the cobs were buried at depth and for a time.  I don't know that yet.



On the Treasure Coast today we had a 2 - 3 foot surf.  Tomorrow the surf is predicted to be down around one foot.

We only have one tropical wave right now, and it is down below the islands and apparently headed towards Central America.

That is all for now.

Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@Comcast.net

7/29/14 Report - How Small Silver 1715 Fleet Cobs Identified by Metal Detector Target ID. Cape Verde Storm Season Begins.

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.BlogSpot.com.

Snall Mexican Cob Remnant Used In Test

Before I begin today, I need to make something clear.  The tests that I have been doing are not just about a single detector.  These tests, although they use a particular detector, illustrate many of the points that I've made many times in the past, such as the dangers and imperfections of target ID and discrimination.  They are real, and they can be very important.

Another point that I am making with these tests is that you have to know your detector to get the most out of it.  If you don't you could be missing a lot of good targets - perhaps the best targets.

One day, using five different sample gold jewelry items of different sizes, I showed that if you did not dig items identified as  pull tabs, you could be missing something like 40% of the gold items that you put your coil over.

Another Small Half Reale Used In The Test

One more important thing I am illustrating through these tests is a systematic method anyone can use to learn how their detector responds and what it is telling you.  That is perhaps the most important thing to learn from these tests.  These types of tests can be used with any detector and any type of target.

I looked at how gold was identified by one detector a couple of days ago, and a few pieces of silver yesterday.  Overall, I've found coin ID on the Ace 250 to be generally excellent, but gold not as good.  That is to be expected.  Gold items are unique in size and shape and even composition.  Gold items vary in purity and the alloys used.

Today I'm going to look at how the same detector identified three small beach-found silver cobs.  Two of the test cobs for today's test are shown above.

As with the other tests, I tested using four of the detector's modes: All metals, Coin, Jewelry and Relic modes.

For the small cobs I used a badly worn half reales, which, as is true of most cobs found on the beach, were significantly underweight. 

The first weighed 0.015 troy oz,, the next, .07 troy oz., and the third, 0.2 troy oz.

The top picture above shows a small cob remnant, which is so small and worn that it would be underweight for even a quarter-reale, even though it is a half reale.

It measures about 5/8 inch across at its widest and barely over one half inch long.

These test results are easy to summarize.  The ID in all four modes was the same for all three cobs.  In all four modes all three cobs were identified  as a nickel.

That isn't bad.  Yes, you can't tell the difference between a cob and a nickel with the target ID, but at least the cobs didn't ID as a pull tab or something else that you most likely would not dig.

I was surprised that the detector identified the very small reale (0.015 t. oz.) as a nickel.   This inexpensive detector very clearly detected a very small piece of silver.  Not bad!  And it did not ID it as junk.

That is good news if you want to use a detector like this for finding cobs.  I haven't used this detector in the field for that purpose yet, and the one serious deficiency of this test is that it was conducted on dry sand, not mineralized or wet sand.  That will be a test for another day, although I most likely would stick with my much more costly detectors if I were really hunting reales on a beach.  Another test for another day would be to see how much depth effects the results.  These tests were done on surface items.

As it is, I am pleased with the effectiveness of this detector.   My first field tests in an old yard and woods, went well, as did the tests that I conducted since then.

Questions remain to be investigated, but I am getting to know this detector and its strengths and shortcomings.  I learned that if I'm searching for gold, I need to dig items identified as nickels or pull tabs.  If I want to detect small cobs, I need to dig items identified as nickels. 

I haven't test larger reales yet.   The smalls identified as nickels, while the large (0.6 t. oz.) silver bullion coin that I tested yesterday, was identified as a half dollar.  This test did not test reales in between 0.2 t. oz. and 0.6 t. oz.   I'll have to do that some time.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are some in that range that will ID as a pull-tab.  We'll see.  For now, I know that the target ID would not cause me to miss small reales if I dig targets identified as nickels, or larger silver coins.


It is the time of year when the Cape Verde storms start coming across the Atlantic with greater frequency.  August through October are the peak months to watch for those storms.

Here is a link to a good article about the Cape Verde hurricanes

http://blog.chron.com/weather/2014/07/heres-why-the-atlantic-tropics-are-likely-awakening/


Right now there is a tropical disturbance about a 1000 miles southwest of the Cape Verde Islands that has a 70% chance of becoming a cyclone in the next 48 hours.

According to the predictions, the Treasure Coast will be stuck with a one-foot surf through next Monday.

Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@Comcast.net

12/11/13 Report - Poll Results and Treasure In Your Own Back Yard

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.

Ring and Silver Coins Found in Yard
Finds and Photos by Dan B.

As I've said before, you don't have to drive long distances to metal detect.  Your own back yard can be an excellent place to do a little detecting and add to your skill level.

Dan B., while continuing to learn to use his detector, found these silver coins and ring in his own yard.  He says that the finds surprise him since his property has so little history.

You never know to you look.

If you've gone over your yard many times, don't let that stop you.  I'll bet you can still get something out of it as you learn new things.




In my previous post I mentioned that about one in five people who detected during November found a cob or treasure coin.  During that time period I had a level three rating for a several days.

I've been trying to quantify my rating scale.   Those numbers work out well.   It appears that what I've been calling level three detecting conditions will give you about a one in five chance of finding a cob or treasure coin on the Treasure Coast.

Roughly approximating, I'll say that with level two conditions the probability would be about `10%, level three detecting conditions would give you about a 30% chance, and level five, a 40% and up chance.  Level one conditions would give less than a one percent chance of finding cobs or treasure coins on the beach.

I'll test those hypothetical numbers out in the future and continue to refine my beach detecting conditions scale.  It may be a good while before we get level four or five conditions.  They don't happen often, which makes it more difficult to quantify.  Nonetheless, I've been happy with how well my predictions have worked out so far and how the data has supported my guesses.

One thing I found out in the poll that was summarized in my 11/29 post is that if you found one cob, the probability is very high (about 4 - 1)  that you found more than one.  That data referred to a time period when the conditions rating as level three for multiple days.  I doubt that the probability of multiple finds is as high if the good conditions do not last as long.

I'll address what the poll says about silver cob or treasure coin finds today.

First, the most recently concluded poll confirms my belief that more cobs found on the beach are cobs of smaller denominations. 

Of the reales reported found in this poll, it appears that something like two thirds were either half-reales or one-reales.  The same number of people reported finding half-reales as one-reales (5).

In previous posts I've shown photos of both half-reales and one-reales found during November.

Two people reported finding two-reales and two reported finding 4-reales.

Only one person reported finding an eight-reale.

It has been my theory that more lower denomination cobs are found on the beach, and that is supported by the data. 

I also believe different beaches produce different size cobs.   Bon Steel, for example has long been know for it's small cobs.   The fact that there is no known shipwreck pile adjacent to the beach might be significant, but many questions remain.

The source of the cobs might also be significant.  My theory is that the larger cobs tend to come from the back dunes more than being washed up onto the beach, but that is just a theory with almost no data to either support or refute it.  Can it be that it takes more to wash the larger cobs up onto the beach?  Sounds like a possibility to me, but I can't say.

Very small cobs, especially small half-reales seem to be washed up not too much differently than shells at times.

I've also commented in previous posts about how under-weight many of the beach cobs are and gave weights for some.  It is not surprising that silver cobs corrode and deteriorate in the rough salt water surf.  They will not last forever.  Some appear to have lost nearly two-thirds of their original minted weight.  Of course some are exposed to more hostile conditions, while others remain hidden and somewhat more protected from the rough surf and salt water.

When the back dunes erode, I think more eight-reales will be found.  That will more than likely be during level four or five beach conditions.

There is more good poll information that I'll explore in the future.



Here is an interesting article about the lost colony of Roanoke Island.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131208-roanoke-lost-colony-discovery-history-raleigh/



Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@comcast.net

6/12/12 Report - More on Spanish Colonial Silver Coins & Poll Results

Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.

I've been discussing the Florida Collection of silver coins as it existed at the time Craig's book, Spanish Colonial Silver Coins of the Florida Collection, was written.  The Florida Collection contained large numbers of coins salvaged from the 1715 Fleet.  As you know, the Treasure Coast is predominated by 1715 Fleet wrecks, even though there are other wrecks, both more recent and older, along the Treasure Coast.

At the time of Craig's analysis, there were  304 coins from the Lima mint in the Florida Collection.  Only 3 were half-reals, 79 were 1-reals, 17 2-reals, 41 were 4-reals, and 164 were 8-reals.  I feel certain that the percentage of coins from the Jupiter wreck in more recent years has increased the proportion of Lima coins held in the Florida Collection.  I would also not be surprised if the relative percentage of each denomination has signficantly changed.  Nonetheless, it appears from this data, that Lima half-reales might be fairly scarce along the Treasure Coast.

Potosi, being a very productive mint, was well represented in the Florida Collection.  Yet there was only 1 Potosi half-real, but 95 1-reals, 60 2-reals, 101 4-reals, and 258 8-reals.

Common assayers on the early date-cluster Potosi coins (largely from the Jupiter wreck) include assayer  VR, CH and F.  And common assayers on the later date-cluster coins (largely from the 1715 Fleet) include assayers JR, PR, PP, and PJ.

To whatever extent you can generalize to the Treasure Coast beaches from the Collection, it looks to me like Potosi cobs/coins are much more likely to show an assayer mark than Mexico minted coins.
I hope you haven't found this discussion too tedious.  I like data analysis, even when, as was the case here, the sample leaves a lot to be desired.  Despite the short-comings of the Collection I think it does provide some ideas worth considering.  I hope this information will provide clues to help some of you identify your finds. 

I most likely made a few errors.  Don't be afraid to point them out so I can make any necessary corrections.


The most recent blog poll has concluded and the results are in.  As expected, of the readers of this blog, more detectorists hunt on dry land (78%).   That is not surprising.  It is easier, doesn't depend so much on conditions, and does not require water-proof equipment.

I was a little surprised at the number of detectorists who indicated that they water hunt because I don't see that many people doing it.  I suppose that is because a lot of my hunting is done during  rough conditions on beaches where the water is protected by leases.

Also, the poll provides no information about how often a person gets in the water, just if they do it.

Also, as expected, more people detect while wading in water rather than diving or snorkeling.

The sample size got up to near 100, the usual sample size for my polls.


Sometime soon I'll show you how to turn some of your less exciting finds into real treasures.

Beach detecting conditions remain unchanged along the Treasure Coast.   Still southeast winds and 1 to 2 foot seas.  That will not change until later this weekend if the predictions are correct.  And even then conditions won't change much.  The seas, however, will increase a little.


Happy hunting,
TreasureGuide@comcast.net