Is the Pit Mine really the Lost Dutchman mine?

[markmar]

Yes Bill you are right .

IMO , the Waltz's mine canyon is not a real canyon but only a small side arroyo no more than about 30' wide . Exactly, this ditch/arroyo runs S-N from the big main canyon below untill the cliff above ( very close to LDM ) and after turns in a SW-NE direction through the small hidden valley untill the arch . For this the clue which says : " my mine is on a junction of two canyons " .
No real canyons indeed .

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Not Peralta]

Amigo' and Amigo-ettes,, Why not take a few minutes and talk about some of the real historians and treasure hunters,and prospectors of the supe's mnts,and area, what about the real mountain men and women prospectors,you know, the one's that never had their storie's and pictures put in books,the one's that actually lived what they would talk about,there are lots of these people that are never mentioned,they were the real story tellers of the supe's, pictures of a lot of the non mentioned and the poster of a lot of the original mnt men and women should be able to be found in the local museum,and yes I said poster of some that were considered to be mnt men and women of the supe's, I will tell you one thing that pushed a lot of them out of the area, anyone remember ( legislation through publication ).Thank you.NP

Amigo's and Amigo-ettes, This is exactly what I was referring to when I posted this, If people would have paid more attention to the older generation of dutch and peralta hunters and their stories ,and directions,and what they had found and not found,a lot could have been eliminated, now, theres too many stories and too many directions, there's no true way of knowing whats true or false concerning the stories,NP

 

[nobodie]

You would have to be there.

 

[Azquester]

After looking at GE and putting two and two together, the view Waltz showed in his map would have to have been from the mine entrance because that view he scribed does not line up from any known trail system today. I believe he could have said he left the main trail about half a mile from the mine and the view was what you see from the mine when you climb up a ways above it. Julia Thomas was attempting to get to Willow Spring from the front side of the range with a wagon. That would make more sense than the view being from the trail system Waltz used as they are the same today. He said it was a short distance from the front of the main range.

IMHO

 

[markmar]

Bill

The Waltz's sketch has many tricks on it . Many landmarks are missing below the Weavers Needle , so , the WN is only a point of reference which helps to the orientation . We have to don't take the shape of the WN literally because is only a surveying pillar in this case .
Let's see the critical landmarks on the Waltz's sketch which are in the red square .



This view could be seen from the base of the mountain close to the mouth of the big main canyon . I post a GE picture from the place , with the known alteration of the real image ( about 70% accuracy).



That's it .

 

[cactusjumper]

All,







These are my pictures taken of the saddle with Weaver's Needle framed in it.

You should keep in mind that it had probably been many years since Waltz had seen that view. He was likely working from memory clouded by who knows what medical condition he may have been in. Close to death?

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Not Peralta]

Bill

The Waltz's sketch has many tricks on it . Many landmarks are missing below the Weavers Needle , so , the WN is only a point of reference which helps to the orientation . We have to don't take the shape of the WN literally because is only a surveying pillar in this case .
Let's see the critical landmarks on the Waltz's sketch which are in the red square .

View attachment 1330121

This view could be seen from the base of the mountain close to the mouth of the big main canyon . I post a GE picture from the place , with the known alteration of the real image ( about 70% accuracy).

View attachment 1330124 View attachment 1330125

That's it .

Marius,Amigo, were is that in conjunction to palomino mnt ,and black top mesa.NP

 

[cactusjumper]

Back to the Pit Mine/Silver Chief, one might wonder if any of the people who have claimed that the original claim notice was not accurate, have gone to the location on the claim notice? One person who has been there has assured me the Silver Chief is located correctly on the notice.





In some cases, I suspect that some who claim to have visited the locations are simply using other's work to sound knowledgeable. Inserting oneself into such stories is pretty common for a number of Dutch Hunters.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Matthew Roberts]

cactusjumper,

The James Rogers Silver Chief and the Abbie Hatch Silver Chief 2 are two separate mines. They are not the same mine nor are they the same location. Neither has anything to do with the other.

James Rogers filed his Silver Chief claim in 1875. Abbie Hatch filed her Silver Chief 2 claim in 1919, 44 years after James Rogers claim.

I have never said anything about the Abbie Hatch Silver Chief claim being accurate or not. The Hatch claim is not relevant to the original Silver chief / Pit Mine.

The two are confusing because they both have the same name (Silver Chief). That is all they share in common.



Matthew

 

[markmar]

Joe

From the Willow spring , are you able to see Weavers Needle ? I don't think so . Because if Julia had to come from the Hogs or Hieroglyphic canyon into the West Boulder canyon , then she should be able to see the sketch without climbing on the mountain west of the West Boulder canyon .
Your pictures are far away from the Waltz direction clue . You are still taking the shape of WN from the Waltz's sketch literally .

 

[markmar]

Marius,Amigo, were is that in conjunction to palomino mnt ,and black top mesa.NP

Fairly close .

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,

The James Rogers Silver Chief and the Abbie Hatch Silver Chief 2 are two separate mines. They are not the same mine nor are they the same location. Neither has anything to do with the other.

James Rogers filed his Silver Chief claim in 1875. Abbie Hatch filed her Silver Chief 2 claim in 1919, 44 years after James Rogers claim.

I have never said anything about the Abbie Hatch Silver Chief claim being accurate or not. The Hatch claim is not relevant to the original Silver chief / Pit Mine.

The two are confusing because they both have the same name (Silver Chief). That is all they share in common.



Matthew

Matthew,

Don't believe I have said anything about your commenting on the accuracy of the Silver Chief claim. Memory is not so good, so who knows.....besides you, of course. Can you tell us your source for the name being used on two separate mines in the same general area?

Thanks, in any case.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Matthew,

Don't believe I have said anything about your commenting on the accuracy of the Silver Chief claim. Memory is not so good, so who knows.....besides you, of course. Can you tell us your source for the name being used on two separate mines in the same general area?

Thanks, in any case.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

cactusjumper,

I cannot explain the Abbie Hatch 1919 Silver Chief 2 mining claim. I never tried to other than to give the information on the claim that was filed.

James Rogers located and filed the original Silver Chief claim in 1875.

Abbie Hatch files the Silver Chief 2 claim 44 years later and states " I am the locator of the claim." They can't both be locator of the Silver Chief. So Hatch's Silver Chief is a later claim at a separate site the way I read it.

Obviously something is wrong and I believe the error lies with the mining claims filed by Abbie Hatch.

The below map shows the site of the James Rogers 1875 Silver Chief in red. Also on that map is the Rogers trough and Millsite referred to in Abbie Hatch's later claim.



Below is Jack Carlson's placement of James Rogers 1875 Silver Chief Mining claim. This is Jack's map put together with his research of the mining records. Check the first topo map with Jacks topo and you will see they are the same site.
The Silver Chief on Jacks map is about 1 1/2 (one and one half miles) NW or the Rogers Millsite. Not 3 miles NW of the Rogers Millsite as referenced in Abbie Hatch's Mining claim.
I have always disregarded the Hatch Silver Chief claim as irrelevant to the real Silver Chief issue.



I will take you out to the Silver Chief site when the weather gets cooler and show you what I'm talking about.

Best,

Matthew

 

[EarnieP]

You guys are getting me dizzy.
Haven't we already done this 'Silver Chief vs. Silver Chief #2' fairly recently?

 

[azdave35]

cactusjumper,

I cannot explain the Abbie Hatch 1919 Silver Chief 2 mining claim. I never tried to other than to give the information on the claim that was filed.

James Rogers located and filed the original Silver Chief claim in 1875.

Abbie Hatch files the Silver Chief 2 claim 44 years later and states " I am the locator of the claim." They can't both be locator of the Silver Chief. So Hatch's Silver Chief is a later claim at a separate site the way I read it.

Obviously something is wrong and I believe the error lies with the mining claims filed by Abbie Hatch.

The below map shows the site of the James Rogers 1875 Silver Chief in red. Also on that map is the Rogers trough and Millsite referred to in Abbie Hatch's later claim.

View attachment 1330243

Below is Jack Carlson's placement of James Rogers 1875 Silver Chief Mining claim. This is Jack's map put together with his research of the mining records. Check the first topo map with Jacks topo and you will see they are the same site.
The Silver Chief on Jacks map is about 1 1/2 (one and one half miles) NW or the Rogers Millsite. Not 3 miles NW of the Rogers Millsite as referenced in Abbie Hatch's Mining claim.
I have always disregarded the Hatch Silver Chief claim as irrelevant to the real Silver Chief issue.

View attachment 1330244

I will take you out to the Silver Chief site when the weather gets cooler and show you what I'm talking about.

Best,

Matthew

if he was claiming over an abandoned claim he could still call himself the locator...when you stake a claim you have to post a locator monument...in the old days it had to be in the middle of your claim....so you erected your locator monument on the strike and laid your claim out from there...now your locator monument can be anywhere on the claim..

 

[Matthew Roberts]

azdave35 wrote : if he was claiming over an abandoned claim he could still call himself the locator...when you stake a claim you have to post a locator monument...in the old days it had to be in the middle of your claim....so you erected your locator monument on the strike and laid your claim out from there...now your locator monument can be anywhere on the claim..

I agree Dave that is true. But even in 1919 when Hatch filed the claim you had to state if the claim was a re-location. That law is still on the Mining Law books today, if I filed on the Silver Chief today I would have to claim it as a re-location. I couldn't state "I was the locator of the claim", like Hatch did. That is the part that confuses me the most about her claim.

Matthew

 

[audigger53]

I think that Waltz had 2 different mines. One was the low grade shaft he and Wiesner sunk and then he went to Queen Creek Tading post for supplies. When he came back Wiesner was staked out and dying. He was so scared it took him 2 weeks to make it back to Phoenix. Then another almost 3 months to go back and bury him in the shaft (ready made grave) and cover it with logs(?) Mesquite sounds better than Iron wood. Then he makes a second find and mines it until it has pinched out. I think that is where the stuff under the bed came from. I do have a problem with him having lots of gold as he didn't live like he did.

 

[azdave35]

azdave35 wrote : if he was claiming over an abandoned claim he could still call himself the locator...when you stake a claim you have to post a locator monument...in the old days it had to be in the middle of your claim....so you erected your locator monument on the strike and laid your claim out from there...now your locator monument can be anywhere on the claim..

I agree Dave that is true. But even in 1919 when Hatch filed the claim you had to state if the claim was a re-location. That law is still on the Mining Law books today, if I filed on the Silver Chief today I would have to claim it as a re-location. I couldn't state "I was the locator of the claim", like Hatch did. That is the part that confuses me the most about her claim.

Matthew

matthew...i have a few claims and have never had to declare anything about relocator...they have a place to check if you are the locator or agent.( i believe the agent means you hired someone to stake it for you)...but what matters is who is listed as the locator.... ..whoever is listed as the locator is the owner of the claim...i looked on my claim papers and also at some claim papers from the 1920's and didnt see anything on there about having to state if the claim was a relocation or new claim...i think what you are confused about is the meaning of the locator.....that does not mean you found the claim..it means you staked it..therefore you are the owner...there are a few guys on here that are more versed in mining law than i am and maybe they will chime in

 

[Matthew Roberts]

matthew...i have a few claims and have never had to declare anything about relocator...they have a place to check if you are the locator or agent.( i believe the agent means you hired someone to stake it for you)...but what matters is who is listed as the locator.... ..whoever is listed as the locator is the owner of the claim...i looked on my claim papers and also at some claim papers from the 1920's and didnt see anything on there about having to state if the claim was a relocation or new claim...i think what you are confused about is the meaning of the locator.....that does not mean you found the claim..it means you staked it..therefore you are the owner...there are a few guys on here that are more versed in mining law than i am and maybe they will chime in

Hi Dave,

here is the Arizona County and BLM law on filing a relocation lode deposit mining claim. A partner and I filed a mining claim earlier this year and we had to be very precise if the location was the site of a previous location even if no work had been done at the original site. We had to certify if the location we were claiming was a new discovery or a relocation of an abandoned claim. The County of Arizona is not so strict on this point but after you have recorded the claim at the courthouse the BLM is very adamant on this technicality.

RELOCATIONS--A relocation is treated as a new original location which essentially covers the same land as a prior mining claim/site. As such, a relocation will be issued a new serial number and date stamp. Filing fees of $212 per claim is required.

A relocation does not relate back to the date of the prior location and is adverse to the prior location.

A relocation may not be established by the use of an "amended location notice," but requires a new, original notice or certificate as prescribed by state law.
Arizona State and BLM law on filing a relocation lode deposit mining claim

Best,

Matthew

 

[azdave35]

Hi Dave,

here is the Arizona County and BLM law on filing a relocation lode deposit mining claim. A partner and I filed a mining claim earlier this year and we had to be very precise if the location was the site of a previous location even if no work had been done at the original site. We had to certify if the location we were claiming was a new discovery or a relocation of an abandoned claim. The County of Arizona is not so strict on this point but after you have recorded the claim at the courthouse the BLM is very adamant on this technicality.

RELOCATIONS--A relocation is treated as a new original location which essentially covers the same land as a prior mining claim/site. As such, a relocation will be issued a new serial number and date stamp. Filing fees of $212 per claim is required.

A relocation does not relate back to the date of the prior location and is adverse to the prior location.

A relocation may not be established by the use of an "amended location notice," but requires a new, original notice or certificate as prescribed by state law.
Arizona State and BLM law on filing a relocation lode deposit mining claim

Best,

Matthew

that must be new this year....makes you wonder what they are up to..lol