which claim looks better from a maps view only

[Jwoot]

I was looking into these claims out west for mainly dredging. Sampling will certainly take place if I continue with them but my time to sample will be very limited. Which one looks best terrain wise in your opinions.. with the most shallow bedrock? in the first image you can see the distant view, the river flows east to west/right to left in that image. from that one it should be easy to tell where your looking at in the other images.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

You can't tell anything of real value from these photos. Only sampling will tell you what you want to know.

 

[Indianametal]

I know nothing about out there but the creeks I have been digging around here I find the least amount on oxbows. I would be eager to sample the location marked on the left.

 

[Jwoot]

You can't tell anything of real value from these photos. Only sampling will tell you what you want to know.

Thanks but I was looking more for general bedrock information. Is that something that can be read on topos with somewhat decent accuracy?

 

[Terry Soloman]

Thanks but I was looking more for general bedrock information. Is that something that can be read on topos with somewhat decent accuracy?

Not really. Topo maps give a very good picture of terrain and elevations, but not overburden. A lot of folks use software like "Footprints" North Bradshaw Details in Arizona, and combine the topo's with geology and hydrography mapping to get a better guess at overburden depths, but even then it is pure guesstimating until you start sampling.

 

[DesertNuggets]

What site/program are you using for those claim maps?

 

[Jwoot]

What site/program are you using for those claim maps?

Google earth as it says at the bottom right.. I drew the lines myself so its not perfect.

 

[DesertNuggets]

Google earth as it says at the bottom right.. I drew the lines myself so its not perfect.

Yeah I was referring to the claim markers. Thanks.

 

[Desertphile]

You should look at MRDS records to see which area has the most records that mention gold in the database.

 

[goldenIrishman]

I agree with Terry S on this one. Topo maps can't give you the information you really need to make a wise decision in this matter. Sampling is the ONLY way to get the info you need. I've been working with Topo maps for almost 50 years now and have never seen one that could give you that kind of information.

Best bet is to get yourself out to the claims and provided you have permission to do so, sample sample, and then do some more samples! Now.... If I was doing that I'd get real topo maps of the areas in question and mark the claim boundaries on them using an overlay. Then mark the overlay(s) with the locations where you take your samples from. Code your bags/buckets so you don't get them mixed up (I don't trust my memory to keep each sample straight anymore) and then you can check the sample against the locations on the map to make your decision. Searching for gold is like an episode of CSI. You have to follow all the clues to find the culprit.

 

[Jwoot]

Thanks for the help.. That kinda sucks, I can find time to go sample but I don't have the time to go dig 4 foot holes all over to see if I can find bedrock. I thought the layout would give indications on bedrock depth like how 1 claim is on the creek right off a cliff and the other is in a small valley

 

[goldenIrishman]

Well once you're on site you can look at the surrounding terrain and get at least a ballpark idea of how far down bedrock "should" be. I've been working a wash here in S.E. AZ and in places you can see bedrock already on the sides of the wash. I just form a mental picture of the angles etc and it's usually pretty close to what it turns out is there. Go by the angle of the hills and the terrain and you should be able to get an idea at least.

 

[Fullpan]

If my life depended on choosing one, I'd pick Nr. 3 pic location just because it seems to be the narrowest choke point for dredging. I really don't like any of the locations because the gradient of the river seems too flat - any good gold would have deposited farther upstream (to the right of pics). If you compare the flatness
of terrain to known gold rivers in Calif., you would be working near the central valley instead of in the higher elevations, steeper gradient, and faster flows of
the Mother Lode where dredging has occured on a small scale. The old big commercial dredges operated in your kind of terrain simply because they moved so
much material per day.

 

[Jwoot]

If my life depended on choosing one, I'd pick Nr. 3 pic location just because it seems to be the narrowest choke point for dredging. I really don't like any of the locations because the gradient of the river seems too flat - any good gold would have deposited farther upstream (to the right of pics). If you compare the flatness
of terrain to known gold rivers in Calif., you would be working near the central valley instead of in the higher elevations, steeper gradient, and faster flows of
the Mother Lode where dredging has occured on a small scale. The old big commercial dredges operated in your kind of terrain simply because they moved so
much material per day.

That's the one that originally got my interest. I figured bedrock would be more shallow since its basically right next to a cliff and its so tight there. After seeing photos of both locations this is one is also full of boulders and stuff while the rectangular one isn't and also looks more like a valley.