Fort Pierce BOOTY

[PhipsFolly]

I understand Brent and his crew hit it big at Corrigans... Biggest haul in a long time!!!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[bobinsd]

Could someone explain the reason for the why there is a split of 50/50 after the state gets her fifth? I think this is leftover from
the Mel Fisher days, but what does anything dated 1715 have anything to do with finding the Atocha? Why is one company getting
40% of everything found? Why do they have (still) an exclusive right to administer licenses to hunt? Am I missing something?

 

[GatorBoy]

I understand Brent and his crew hit it big at Corrigans... Biggest haul in a long time!!!

Shhhh...lol
Hey... I was speaking with my friend Jim at the library he had a few things on display there one of them I think came from you.. if I remember a few years back I think you posted this particular piece... One of I think several that have been found that may have belonged to a very large object which unfortunately I cannot remember the name for it was sort of a screw on piece with a brass looking ball..... Boy that sounded really technical and educated

 

[GatorBoy]

Nice GatorBoy! Where did you find that? And, can you make it bigger?
Are the permit holders/contactors allowed to pull up cannons?

Sorry I missed this.
I don't have all the technical answers but I'll take a shot at this and say of course they have the right but I think they really serve a better purpose on the site.. Also it's quite a large undertaking to properly salvage and conserve one of these most of which are 8 feet long on these particular ships

 

[grossmusic]

Could someone explain the reason for the why there is a split of 50/50 after the state gets her fifth? I think this is leftover from
the Mel Fisher days, but what does anything dated 1715 have anything to do with finding the Atocha? Why is one company getting
40% of everything found? Why do they have (still) an exclusive right to administer licenses to hunt? Am I missing something?

The way I understand it:

State takes 20% (sometimes)
Contract holder keeps 50% of what's left - they actually do a lot for their share
Salvors who lease & make the find keep the other 50%

The State's split depends on the type & amount of treasure. Sometimes they don't bother taking their share at all since they have so much in Tallahassee now.

The Atocha find came after Mel was involved with the 1715 wrecks. I believe he was lured to Florida by the Real Eight gang in the ’70s (or earlier?), found a lot of treasure with that then invested time, energy & money into the Atocha. Until about 5 years ago the Fishers continued to be the "caretakers" (lease holders) of much of the Treasure Coast until turning it over to Queen's Jewels. There are other contract holders who oversee some of the areas not covered by Queen's Jewels.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I really hate looking things up at 2am to verify.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Could someone explain the reason for the why there is a split of 50/50 after the state gets her fifth? I think this is leftover from
the Mel Fisher days, but what does anything dated 1715 have anything to do with finding the Atocha? Why is one company getting
40% of everything found? Why do they have (still) an exclusive right to administer licenses to hunt? Am I missing something?

Cobb Coin company filed a federal admiralty arrest on the "1715 ship wreck areas" in the late 70's early 80's. 1715 Fleet Queen's Jewels, llc acquired the custodianship of these areas in 2010.

Thankfully since Real 8 had state leases those parties have allowed sub-contractors!

Those companies rights persist because they went through the proper channels. Not much different than a gold "mine" lease or anything else in history where the first people to file paperwork get the benefit.

The voluntary contribution to the State of FL is for up to 20% per wreck site of unique, non-redundant artifacts. So this is why at times the is no donation to the state.

 

[thetigers2]

Thanks,Chris.......

 

[TreasureCDave]

"but what does anything dated 1715 have anything to do with finding the Atocha? "

Because the State of Florida lost in the lawsuit over the Atocha treasure (Mel Fisher) and couldn't pay Mel's court fees. Instead, Mel asked for the 1715 rights in perpetuity as compensation for these fees.

 

[GatorBoy]

"but what does anything dated 1715 have anything to do with finding the Atocha? "

Because the State of Florida lost in the lawsuit over the Atocha treasure (Mel Fisher) and couldn't pay Mel's court fees. Instead, Mel asked for the 1715 rights in perpetuity as compensation for these fees.

You sound awful confused and I don't understand your question the 1715 fleet and the artifacts associated with the disaster are in a completely different stretch of coastline.
These leases can basically be looked at as mining and dredging operations.. The salvage rights and permission to conduct that activity is done so by portions of bottom real estate not by the date on anything

 

[TreasureCDave]

Nope, not confused at all. I was simply answering the question posted earlier in the thread by bobinsd. He asked the question of what the 1715 wrecks had to do with the Atocha.! (maybe I misunderstood the question?)

I know exactly where both sites are

 

[Red_desert]

Nope, not confused at all. I was simply answering the question posted earlier in the thread by bobinsd. He asked the question of what the 1715 wrecks had to do with the Atocha.! (maybe I misunderstood the question?)

I know exactly where both sites are

The way I understand it from memory, not looking things up....

The Atocha and other ships were drawn into the Gulf of Mexico, then winds changed to bring them back and wreck off rocks near Key West.

The 1715 Fleet wrecked off a section of FL E coast.

The US Gov claimed the Atocha and lost the battle with Mel Fish, so they turned the shipwreck control over to the states. Later Mel Fisher gave beyond the 20% required by the state, giving donations to museums in other states as well.

 

[Salvor6]

"The US Gov claimed the Atocha and lost the battle with Mel Fish, so they turned the shipwreck control over to the states. Later Mel Fisher gave beyond the 20% required by the state, giving donations to museums in other states as well."


Red Desert you got it wrong. The state of FL claimed the Atocha was in state waters. It is actually 30 miles west of Key West. Mel took it all the way to the US Supreme Court and won. The state gets nothing from the Atocha.

 

[Red_desert]

"The US Gov claimed the Atocha and lost the battle with Mel Fish, so they turned the shipwreck control over to the states. Later Mel Fisher gave beyond the 20% required by the state, giving donations to museums in other states as well."


Red Desert you got it wrong. The state of FL claimed the Atocha was in state waters. It is actually 30 miles west of Key West. Mel took it all the way to the US Supreme Court and won. The state gets nothing from the Atocha.

It's been so long since reading about it, seems he did go to the US Supreme Court. FL would try to claim a wreck close to their line, if they could get away with it. Must have been from the 1715 Fleet Mel gave museum donations above the states 20%.

 

[Red_desert]

Treasure Of Atocha by Dr. R. Duncan Mathewson III Sunken Treasure


"In the treasure business, success can be more difficult than failure. During the 16 year search Fisher had to wage battle in court with the United States Federal Government Land the State of Florida for ownership of the Atocha‘s great wealth.

In ruling against the United States and for Treasure Salvors in March 1978, Judge Walter P. Gewin of the U.S. Court of Appeals wrote:
“This action evokes all the romance and danger of the buccaneering days in the West Indies. It is routed in an ancient tragedy of Imperial Spain, and embraces a modern tragedy as well. The case also represents the story of triumph, a story in which the daring and determination of the colonial settlers are mirrored by contemporary treasure seekers.”

 

[bobinsd]

Thanks for your reply, TCD, but the agreement seems to include ALL shipwrecks. What happens if someone claims that a wrecksite
is other than a 1715 site, or if they just claim that it is not a 1715 knowing that it probably is? Does it (the agreement) cover the west coast of FL as well?
How far off of the coast does the agreement extend? And if in int'l waters, will the Spaniards move in a la Mercedes?

 

[TreasureCDave]

Thanks for your reply, TCD, but the agreement seems to include ALL shipwrecks. What happens if someone claims that a wrecksite
is other than a 1715 site, or if they just claim that it is not a 1715 knowing that it probably is? Does it (the agreement) cover the west coast of FL as well?
How far off of the coast does the agreement extend? And if in int'l waters, will the Spaniards move in a la Mercedes?

All I know is how the rights to the 1715 sites came about and how it relates to the Atocha. The perimeters of the 1715 wrecks are well defined and searchable here. As far as the rest of your questions .... I'll let someone far more qualified than me on the subject take a stab at it.

 

[bobinsd]

All I know is how the rights to the 1715 sites came about and how it relates to the Atocha. The perimeters of the 1715 wrecks are well defined and searchable here. As far as the rest of your questions .... I'll let someone far more qualified than me on the subject take a stab at it.

Dave, thanks, and I'm sure there are others in TN that would like to know what their limitations are
as far as metal detecting in the surf in a non-1715 site or looking thru their glass-bottom boat for a flash of yellow. Without a permit, are they breaking the law?

 

[grossmusic]

I'm not more qualified by any means, but the answer as I understand it is about geography. If you find wrecks within the leased area that are not 1715, all the same rules apply. Why? Because no one knows with 100% certainty what wreck is what. Maybe a 19th-C ship was carrying old coins & wrecked. Maybe flotsam brought some 1733 artifacts up to Ft. Pierce. There's no way to know, so the contracts cover it all regionally.

Something to do with outgoing/incoming tides re: metal detecting. You can metal detect basically to your ankles in water most days, but I'm no tidal expert, so take that with a grain of saltwater.

If you see something through your glass-bottom boat, admire it. Legally, don't touch it unless you have the contract/lease.

 

[GatorBoy]

That's all there is to it the lease is on the section of geography.. it's not based on what you find in it.If you find it within your lease area you have the right to salvage whatever it may be... Barring any human remains which fall under existing law

As far as beach detecting it is allowed from the foot of the dunes to the average low tide line.
Actually if going by the book Florida antiquity laws apply to beach detecting even though absolutely nothing is going to be in context and the law was supposed to be formatted to protect archaeological sites .. But until some much needed reform of some sort of isolated finds program .... I wouldn't go showing off anything old you may have found to a lifeguard or something like that they'll just take it from you.

 

[bobinsd]

I'm not more qualified by any means, but the answer as I understand it is about geography. If you find wrecks within the leased area that are not 1715, all the same rules apply. Why? Because no one knows with 100% certainty what wreck is what. Maybe a 19th-C ship was carrying old coins & wrecked. Maybe flotsam brought some 1733 artifacts up to Ft. Pierce. There's no way to know, so the contracts cover it all regionally.

Something to do with outgoing/incoming tides re: metal detecting. You can metal detect basically to your ankles in water most days, but I'm no tidal expert, so take that with a grain of saltwater.

If you see something through your glass-bottom boat, admire it. Legally, don't touch it unless you have the contract/lease.

Hey! I just bought your book. Bob