1715 fleet dec 13 at cocoa - at florida historical society annual meeting

Yes it was very good. thanks guys. I was sitting behind Bill but didn't get a chance to say hi. Had to get going.


Dale
 

Terry

Found the meeting very interesting and glad I made the trip. I dragged my grandson along with me and even he thought it was neat.
I showed you my "waves down" Potosi CH cob and then neglected to ask my question regarding
the south end of corrigans and John's (?) island area. I walk that area of the beach on a fairly regular basis
but have never seen any of the boats working that area. I ask because I have found pottery sherds and Kang Hsi blue and white porcelain and a 18" peice of wood with a square spike stuck in it on the extreme south end of corrigans and have wondered if there might be some wreckage in that area. I took from your presentation that maybe there is. Again enjoyed it and meeting you.
lockieme
 

Yes it was informative. Always love to hear about treasure.

Unfortunately I had to leave early to get back to homework and didn't get a chance to talk to any of you guys, maybe next time!
 

The extreme south end of Corrigans butts up against the north end of Historical Research & Development's E132 lease, which is the location of another 1715 wreck. (which possibly Terry discussed at the meeting?)

Tom
 

Tom, lockieme:
When I worked on the Gold Digger, Mel always had it digging around what is now the first beachside building of the John's Island complex, which is, I guess, about .5 miles south of the northernmost beach access. I never got down to the south end at all, and, at that time, I don't even know if Mel had any idea about the south end. I remember that one of the Fisher boys got wind of a dark spot that a carpenter working one of the bell tower structures on the John's Island building said he could see from that elevation (maybe 50 feet or so). Who knows. Meantime, the whole area has been worked hard, but it is so expansive that you never know. I should also throw in that I was definitely a Real 8 man and did not appreciate being loaned out at Corrigans the the Treasure Salvors group... my snotty ass wanted to work on the 'real' treasure wreck a the Cabin site, not down in the hinterlands (even though the diving was always much better at Corrigan's). I was not fully informed about what was going on at the time, and, as a simple 'hired' diver, had NO luck prying information out of Rex Stocker about any wrecks other than the Cabin. In fact, I now realize that there was some definite rivalry between the two groups and that Mel had already done lots of work that I never heard anything about. It all boiled down to the fact that I was only working for a dollar and I was always looking to find a job that paid more. I was paid about $90.00 a week and worked 6 days a week from sun-up till sunset

Tommy knew about the HRD wreck and took the Gordys there, but he says they were not really interested. That's about all he says about it. At any rate, its gonna take another lobster expedition to locate anything between HRD and Corrigan's, I think, but I am not positive about that. Do the Corrigan's and HRD lease areas adjoin directly? Otherwise, Big Brother holds the bag and we won't know anything officially.

By the way, that coin was stupendous and very rare. I am glad I got to see it! You did the right thing cleaning it up. That's actually the first Chavarria I have ever seen. According to Dan Sedwick, Chavarria only assayed in 1697, and your cob even had a legible date! When you say "extreme" south end of Corrigans, I don't think you mean the HRD area... maybe Tom can clarify that.

And, if more of the hunters had shown up, I am sure that we could have had quite a discussion. I might ask the FHS if we can repeat the event and I will give the forums more notice. Questions like lockieme's could fuel another discovery!!
 

glad you folks seemed to enjoy the show ---- even my "goof" -- I was trying to say of terrys stray red "ballast" stone that was found inland --the storm blew it on the ocean shoreline then a indian scouting about got it and took it inland to use as a tool or for arrowheads being it was a hard type stone (hard stones are rare in florida )-- however my thoughts and mouth weren't "in sync" -- and it came off as if the rock got blown 50 - 60 miles inland --- ( must been one heck of a storm ;D ) I straighten out my statement a bit later of course , but a good laugh never hurt anyone ---(opps) -- one can't get too serious to have a laugh now and then.

I hope that I got across 2 facts -

the first was the letter from admiral salmon stating that of the fleet --9 ships are sank with 2 "missing" thus there were 11 ships in the fleet -- as #2 in command behind Ubilla and being in charge and accountible for the salvage efforts --he if anyone would know how many vessels there was. -- the french vessel "griffon" was a not counted in these numbers as it was not carrying fleet goods that salmon was held liable to account for --so with the griffon there was a total of 12 vessels in all.

fact #2 ---that one of Ubilla's vessels was an english bilander -- it was was taken as a "prize" vessel by Echeverz patache's off of Benaventura while he was awaiting treasure in Portobello -- (he took a total of 3 "prizes" -- one english bilander (of which Gov. Hamilton of Jamacia was 25% owner) and 2 galera class vessels --one french ( aka --the french prize or El Ciervo (the stag) --- and the other dutch (aka La Hollandesa or Olandesa or San Miguel de Popa)---note **** only 2 "prize" vessels are listed as in Echeverz fleet upon departing Havana (the french and dutch prizes) --it was also noted that Ubilla due to the loss of 4 small vessels from his fleet due to a storm in vera cruz , mexico was short of smaller type vessels and bought one vessel in havana *** ( the bilander off of Echeverz) and it became Ubilla's "personal vessel"

also I tried to point out the multi naming used on spanish vessels --that was quite common --where more than one name was carried by a vessel --- ie exsample -- the "class of vessel " urca de lima " -- a urca class vessel belonging to a man named Lima * (a nick name) it also carried a religious name as well for "protection" --- and being catholics how the ship owners often used their patron saints or mary mother of christ in the name ---our lady oif the --Neaustra Senora de la (whatever) which lead to many vessel with similar names --in differant fleets and differant time frames.

if a "prize" vessel often the former owners country was used -- La Holanesa (the dutch) or Olandesa (dutch) or "the dutch prize" or "La Galera" the vessels "class" or type were all used --on just one vessel

I also pointed out the error one author did putting the "La Holandesa" in Ubilla's fleet -- the " the dutch" vessel was Echeverz "prize vessel" thus would have been in his fleet not Ubilla's (opps)
 

Yes, Corrigans and HRD's site adjoin directly on the north end of the HRD site and also shares the same border at the south end with the Rio Mar site. There is no "buffer zone" on either end.

signumops said:
Do the Corrigan's and HRD lease areas adjoin directly? Otherwise, Big Brother holds the bag and we won't know anything officially.
 

so the area is in play already and can be worked * great!!!
 

good no permit issues -- things being what they are I hope folks find lots of stuff in the already permitted areas. to avoid permitting issues.
 

PyrateJim said:
ivan salis said:
so the area is in play already and can be worked * great!!!
HRD has had this site for sometime now and is actively working it.

I was under the impression that there was not a recovery permit issued for this site yet because the state was requiring that the ballast pile be found first, or has that changed?

So, actively working means..... Surveying and limited recovery? Or full-blown recovery with blowers and artifact division with the state?

Robert
 

RGecy said:
PyrateJim said:
ivan salis said:
so the area is in play already and can be worked * great!!!
HRD has had this site for sometime now and is actively working it.

I was under the impression that there was not a recovery permit issued for this site yet because the state was requiring that the ballast pile be found first, or has that changed?

So, actively working means..... Surveying and limited recovery? Or full-blown recovery with blowers and artifact division with the state?

Robert

You are correct. Surveying and limited recovery (if any) at this time. They (State) are still holding out for a ballast pile to be found before they will issue a full salvage permit.
 

a smallish vessel ( like a bilander) might not have any ballast or a very small amount if enough "heavy" cargo was carried upon it . (ballast -- valueless or low value dead weight like rocks or --wore out iron cannons or lead ) was only carried to give" bottom weight" to keep the vessel stable from rolling over in rough weather--- if a valuible "heavy" cargo could be used instead -- ballast was not needed or wanted --- basic economics of sea going 101 --- carry a paying cargo over a non paying one) -- thus the state might have folks searching for something that was not there in the first place. (a ballast pile)--
**** only when the state can "prove" beyond any doubt that the vessel indeed carried ballast rocks , should they be able to "require that ballast rocks be found" to issue recovery permits.
 

and its known that there was a french vessel in Echervez fleet -- the Galera class vessel known as "EL Ciervo" (the stag) aka as "the french prize" * :wink: and it just happens to be one of the 4 went northerly tack "missing vessels" reportly its main cargo was a dye wood known as brasilwood -- 96 tons of it.
 

ivan salis said:
a smallish vessel ( like a bilander) might not have any ballast or a very small amount if enough "heavy" cargo was carried upon it . (ballast -- valueless or low value dead weight like rocks or --wore out iron cannons or lead ) was only carried to give" bottom weight" to keep the vessel stable from rolling over in rough weather--- if a valuible "heavy" cargo could be used instead -- ballast was not needed or wanted --- basic economics of sea going 101 --- carry a paying cargo over a non paying one) -- thus the state might have folks searching for something that was not there in the first place. (a ballast pile)--
**** only when the state can "prove" beyond any doubt that the vessel indeed carried ballast rocks , should they be able to "require that ballast rocks be found" to issue recovery permits.

All very interesting, although I dont think the State would follow the same lines of thinking. We have seen some small, scattered ballast stones on the site, marble and fist sized, but nothing larger or close to what would call a "pile".
 

hey how many stones does it take make a "pile" ? no one said they gotta be "big stones" did they?--- if it'll get you the "salvage" permit -- its a "pile" just a small one from a "small vessel" :wink: go wit what will work in your favor for you.
 

We've had that excate discussion with the State folks. A few dozen in one area should suffice, vs. several found scattered here and there.
 

common sense is not as common in govt folks as it it should be sadly. ---esp. if those folks don't want to "play ball" with you from the get go.(name when the last completely "new" salvage permit -- to actually get goods off the bottom for sale to the public for profiet ---(not based on old already existing claims) was issued and to whom it was issued)
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top