The Brownie Holmes Manuscript

[Oroblanco]

Drifting off topic again!

Well, you're the one who keeps bringing up the matchbox. While the artifact is made from a nice piece of picture rock, the ore has only been alleged to have once belonged to Waltz - and regardless of the truth of that possibility, by no means has the matchbox ore been proven to have originated in the Superstition Mountains. It's spectacular, sure, but it's provenance is questionable. It could have come from any number of sources. In a logical argument, it's dead weight.

Well I guess we have to continue to derail the topic! At least I can tie it in on this aspect - the provenance.

Dick Holmes ended up with the candle box of ore found under Jacob Waltz's deathbed. Uncontested. Whether it was given to him or stolen is not the issue.

Dick Holmes ended up selling most of it, but had several specimens made into jewelry. Uncontested. Dick Holmes stated the matchbox and other jewelry made from the ore came from that found in the candle box. Who is contesting that?

The famous matchbox which you claim is "questionable" in provenance, is traceable to Dick Holmes. If it came from some OTHER source, why on Earth would Holmes bother to get it made into jewelry, and then tell people it was from Waltz? Not logical. Also we have the Holmes manuscript in which Holmes claims the ore was given to him. If you have some OTHER source for that gold, please do not hesitate to provide that provenance for all to judge, thanks in advance. Side thing here but the matchbox just happens to be a handy one to pull up a photo for posting, not so easy for photos of the cuff links, tie pin and other specimens. So it is NOT the only available specimen for comparison, just is handy for forums so don't try to attach all the importance to that single specimen.

AZDave35 wrote

roy...i have been doing ore testing and assays for people for many years....i have many friends that are geologists and mining engineers...i know a little more than the average joe when it comes to ore samples...and i have had a few xrf analysis done on ore..they arent as accurate as you think...they will analyze the rock and tell you which minerals and metals are in it but you still have to assay to get the final answer

I am NOT talking about X-ray fluorescence tests. They are not 100% definitive anyway. I am talking about an ORE COMPARISON done by a qualified geologist. This involves identifying the minerals that make up the ore, the amounts of each, etc as well as mineral grain size. NOT an X-ray fluorescence test. Apparently with all your experience you have never had this done by a geologist.

One other piece of information can only be obtained by a FIRE assay - namely the ratio of gold to silver in the ore. The only fire assay done (that we know of) on LDM ore was done by Joe Porterie for Dick Holmes. This result came back with $110,000 per ton in gold, and about two ounces of silver per ton. That is a ratio of around 5300 to 2 or 2650 parts gold to 1 of silver. That ratio should remain fairly constant through the ore body, regardless of how rich any particular assay results. You know this Dave and if any one claims to have found the LDM a fire assay would reveal if it had a similar gold to silver ratio. If it has a lot more silver, it ain't from the LDM.

A side thing here but that candle box supposedly had something like 48 pounds of gold in it, which may not sound like a great deal to some people but is just what was left after Waltz had bailed out Julia and represents a sizable sum of money even for 1891. Not just a match box, cuff links and tie pin.

To mi amigo Sarge - you already know who to talk to about getting a comparison done.

Apologies again for the off topic stuff. Please do continue.
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[azdave35]

AZDAVE35,


XRay Fluorescence is an assay. Different types of XRF Units are more or less accurate. Are you saying you would do an XRF Test, THEN go get a fire assay? Doesn't make much sense. The proper XRF Machine will give as good a results as any Chromatographic Test. Also, fire cupellation is really an art as much as it is a science. I can take an ore sample to ten different assayers, and get different results from seven of them. When you find a good assayer, stick with'em.


Another thing is that using any type of assaying in verifying Dutchman Ore would MAINLY be to prove that the ore presented would match a different known mine, and could NOT have come from the LDM. You throw out the ones that match known mines, leaving the samples that don't match ANY known mine, then compare tem against the matchbox, cufflinks, or stick pin and see how close they are to a match. Its not rocket science.


............. and regarding Dr Glover's Tests and databases; he had those tests done in 1991. The internet has come a long way in 24 years.




Frank,


I think you know who to ask. People with samples (that I have heard about) have already had their samples tested. They are just keeping the results under their hats. I would too. HAHAHA


Mike

mike...the problem with flux assays is alot of the time you have to adjust the flux to the ore...if the flux isnt right you will lose some precious metals in the slag....and if you dont get the all the copper scorified out before you cupel ..it will actually drag some of the precious metals down into the cupel ..assaying isnt something anyone can do just by reading a book...it is a science and takes alot of trial and error to get it right...the problem with sending your samples to an assay house is they use the same flux on all ores...its called a house flux...it works pretty good if your ore is mainly quartz and gold...but when you add copper and sulfides...it becomes more difficult....and when there is manganese and other troublesome minerals...you have more problems...thats why you get different assays from different companies...if you get lucky and their flux works on your ore then you get a good assay...if not..oh well...years ago an old timer showed me an assay proceedure that works on all ores without adjusting it...thats what i have stuck with for years...another good excellent fast way to assay is torch assay...takes five minutes and no need to adjust the flux..and as far as xrf goes....if you rely on that and that alone you are in for trouble...all the major copper mines use them...but mainly to test for the presence of precious metals...then they go to assays...cupel and a.a. machines to get more accurate...the head geologist at the state mine building in ariz has an xrf..and he will tell you right off the bat.the machine always reads high..especially on gold and platinum....if you want to rely on xrf alone for assays...thats your choice..but the big boys still rely on fire assays...there is an old saying..if you cant cupel it..you cant sell it...it still stands today.....try to sell someone a mine on xrf assays only......if they have any brains they will demand fire assays

 

[azdave35]

AZ, Mike,I was an assayer. I rebuilt and calibrated a Perkins, Atomic Absorption unit. and can say that every specimen that I submitted was different, even from the same vein only a few inches apart. Interesting devices.

There was just enough difference that my Jefe (boss) could tell if I was goofing off

While I had it apart cleaning and re-calibrating it when my boss walked into the lab and instantly developed a love / hate relationship until I proved that it worked.

The thing had been unused for a few years and was dirty and UN-calibrated. I figured it was my duty to put such an expensive unit back into working condition, along with a $ 5,0000 Khan electronic assaying balance. The Khan had to be calibrated to the Latitude you were using it, it was that sensitive..

Now - a- days a $ 10 dollar Harbor freight electronic balance will work good enough for general assays.

An ERF unit has it's limits, as everything else. Even me



t.

real...the old timer that taught me how to do assays had an atomic machine like you describe.....once you got it calibrated it was fairly accurate

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

Good evening Gentlemen: There has been some considerable debate about Holmes "denying any knowledge about the "Holmes Manuscript." This comes from the statement in Tom Glover's book; "Part II: The Holmes Manuscript." On page viii. It is a direct quote taken from Tom Kollenborn's book: "A Ride Through Time", Page 121. Now where Tom Kollenborn got this information I do not know. I have found no such statement by Brownie Holmes as quoted by Tom in any of my research. In fact I have two tape interviews with Brownie Holmes in which he clearly states that he knows about the manuscript. The following is quoted from the interview done by Tom Kollenborn and Monte Edwards on July 23, 1979. This section of the tape is about 4 minutes. Friend: That friend of mine Greg, did he bring you a copy of that manuscript that you wrote years ago?, Brownie: Oh yes, you mean Greg Davis?, Friend: Yes, Greg Davis. Brownie: You mean that manuscript that Higham put in the Historical records. Friend: Yes. Brownie: Yes he brought that. Well, you know, he (Higham) wrote me a letter, Oh and he built himself up and wanted to collaborate with me and write a book on it and I turned him down on the idea and the first thing I know, well I know is my manuscript was missing. (Brownie means here his copy of the Manuscript). Brownie: I'd taken it with me out to First Water (ranch) I wasn't satisfied with it and got into the room at the shack and turned it upside down on the table. When you're out there like that you're always short on paper to start fires with and we had a wood stove. Well, I never though any more about it (the manuscript). That fellow that ran the riding stable (John DeGraffenried), he read my manuscript and did't pay much attention to it. His partner, what was his name, he read it and suddenly it comes to me that the other fellows name Chuch Aylor then it come to me that he had read it, my manuscript. I though Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R's (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript. Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley), well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham's affidavit) he's got in that Historical Society he said it, "mysteriously came to him.". Have you read it? Friend: Yeah. Brownie: he (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me. I've got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I go the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (The manuscript) back, so I have the original here now." As you can see from the interview that Brownie NEVER made the statement: "He had never seen it before." He did state that he did not write it but it was Kennison who did the writing for him. Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions being discussed on this thread. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

 

[cactusjumper]

Good evening Gentlemen: There has been some considerable debate about Holmes "denying any knowledge about the "Holmes Manuscript." This comes from the statement in Tom Glover's book; "Part II: The Holmes Manuscript." On page viii. It is a direct quote taken from Tom Kollenborn's book: "A Ride Through Time", Page 121. Now where Tom Kollenborn got this information I do not know. I have found no such statement by Brownie Holmes as quoted by Tom in any of my research. In fact I have two tape interviews with Brownie Holmes in which he clearly states that he knows about the manuscript. The following is quoted from the interview done by Tom Kollenborn and Monte Edwards on July 23, 1979. This section of the tape is about 4 minutes. Friend: That friend of mine Greg, did he bring you a copy of that manuscript that you wrote years ago?, Brownie: Oh yes, you mean Greg Davis?, Friend: Yes, Greg Davis. Brownie: You mean that manuscript that Higham put in the Historical records. Friend: Yes. Brownie: Yes he brought that. Well, you know, he (Higham) wrote me a letter, Oh and he built himself up and wanted to collaborate with me and write a book on it and I turned him down on the idea and the first thing I know, well I know is my manuscript was missing. (Brownie means here his copy of the Manuscript). Brownie: I'd taken it with me out to First Water (ranch) I wasn't satisfied with it and got into the room at the shack and turned it upside down on the table. When you're out there like that you're always short on paper to start fires with and we had a wood stove. Well, I never though any more about it (the manuscript). That fellow that ran the riding stable (John DeGraffenried), he read my manuscript and did't pay much attention to it. His partner, what was his name, he read it and suddenly it comes to me that the other fellows name Chuch Aylor then it come to me that he had read it, my manuscript. I though Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R's (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript. Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley), well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham's affidavit) he's got in that Historical Society he said it, "mysteriously came to him.". Have you read it? Friend: Yeah. Brownie: he (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me. I've got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I go the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (The manuscript) back, so I have the original here now." As you can see from the interview that Brownie NEVER made the statement: "He had never seen it before." He did state that he did not write it but it was Kennison who did the writing for him. Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions being discussed on this thread. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

Greg,

There were a number of people who were friends with Brownie, Tom being one. I don't know what conversation passed between them, and I suspect you can't say either. I will send your post to Tom and let him comment on it. Til he tells me otherwise, I will go with what he has said.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

Joe; OK. We will wait and see what Tom has to say as to where he got his information for the quote in his book about Brownie. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

 

[dog the treasure hunter]

Whats up with all the LDM B.S.? Its really crazy reading all the different tales.

 

[dog the treasure hunter]

Whatever happened with the people and museum that stole that one guys work,and where selling it? Hopefully the son and the family of the man,who's work was stolen will sue them.

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

It was never stolen: The museum was given to rights to republish the book. Gregory E. Davis

 

[prospecter77]

P77, anyone actually familiar with the reality of gold mining in the west has likely seen numerous picture rock samples quite similar to that matchbox ore, allegedly Waltz's "lost mine" ore. The CO mines that you mentioned are typical examples. Hell, my whole drift shift and I high graded a bunch from the ten hundred level of the Idarado Mine on Red Mountain Pass in 1974 that was every bit as rich - or richer- than the matchbox. I've seen many, many similar examples in private collections all over CO, NM and CA that date to retrieval anywhere from the 1860s to 1980s from mines both well-known and prospects long forgotten. Anyone who believes that the matchbox ore can be scientifically matched to "all gold mines in the west" is delusional, as 90+% of such a "database" is obviously non-existant. Even Glover acknowledges this fact. This subject was thoroughly explored in previous discussions, but many folks eschew facts in order to keep the "legends" alive.

My friend I have 30 or more good ores samples in my yard , I can tell you where everyone of those samples comes from , I have seen 16 to 1 ore , Mad Mamtha , Idarado , Tomboy, Yankeboy , I have spent 32 years studying ores . I can tell you just by looking , which ore is which , I not a treasure hunter per say , But one hell of a geologist , I have spent years on the microscope also , You could put this to the test if you like , Just sent Gold to my house and I will tell you where it is from .
If a sample did exist ,that was a know good sample , ICP and other tests could prove this . The impurities although would be the same if you did gold + 60 element , the percentages my not be exact , but one may contain or not contain certain elements or conditions , like supergene or hypo gene conditions . If I were you I would quit hunting treasure and start hunting those conditions , might be a faster way to find the Dutchman , Satellite scans , radar, sonar , and the magnetometer. The good old eye , most good mines have a lot of secondary enrichment , Iron is the mother of gold right , look for that Rusty spot on Google earth , A ridge with a diamond collapse , I found it . It was just my observation that it looked like Smuggler Union to me of little experience , But it does not look like 16 to1 , Sunnyside , Mayflower , Mad Mutha , Old Hat , etc , and a note to Joe is not the gold from Tayopa , Placers de Parma 22 ct. and this was one way to know it was Tayopa , and what of El Naranhal , or Orange Gold , All the Gold I was mining in Mexico was 89.2 % on 98 % of 34 tests, and 89,1 on the others , I started Mining in about 1981 Have worked the mines ever since Have worked in Washington , Oregon , Colorado , Missouri , Arizona , Nevada , All of the Gold in these mines were Different . So for someone to assume I don't know what I'm talking about would be wrong , I'm no rookie .

PS. If you have some Platinum ore I can work that too .

I guess I am living in PA instead of NM now , For someone is watching me , was just searching for a store near me , and I live in PA .

 

[cactusjumper]

It was never stolen: The museum was given to rights to republish the book. Gregory E. Davis

Greg,

Personally.......I never had a doubt.

Joe

 

[azdave35]

My friend I have 30 or more good ores samples in my yard , I can tell you where everyone of those samples comes from , I have seen 16 to 1 ore , Mad Mamtha , Idarado , Tomboy, Yankeboy , I have spent 32 years studying ores . I can tell you just by looking , which ore is which , I not a treasure hunter per say , But one hell of a geologist , I have spent years on the microscope also , You could put this to the test if you like , Just sent Gold to my house and I will tell you where it is from .
If a sample did exist ,that was a know good sample , ICP and other tests could prove this . The impurities although would be the same if you did gold + 60 element , the percentages my not be exact , but one may contain or not contain certain elements or conditions , like supergene or hypo gene conditions . If I were you I would quit hunting treasure and start hunting those conditions , might be a faster way to find the Dutchman , Satellite scans , radar, sonar , and the magnetometer. The good old eye , most good mines have a lot of secondary enrichment , Iron is the mother of gold right , look for that Rusty spot on Google earth , A ridge with a diamond collapse , I found it .

i'll post a few pics of some ore in the morning and we'll see if you can guess where they come from

 

[nobodie]

Brownie must of had something to do with the manuscript. Clay tells the same story about the mine, at his lectures and on his DVD at the museum.

 

[cactusjumper]

Brownie must of had something to do with the manuscript. Clay tells the same story about the mine, at his lectures and on his DVD at the museum.

nobodie,

It's possible that Brownie decided that the manuscript has some monetary value, if not for him, for his family after he died. He may have done some fine tuning by adding his family's history and some account of his own search. Don't know if there is an original copy or if someone who is still alive may have seen the original.

Personally, I'm skeptical of the whole thing......always have been.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[nobodie]

I don't get into any discussions about who wrote the Holmes manuscript or who carved the stones. I enjoy reading the forums, occasionally I make a comment. I usually just stand back read and smile. The directions given by Dick Holmes are correct. The only reason no one can find it is that both the mine and the caches directions are mixed together. I don't know if J.W., in the condition he was in was just throwing out clues or if Holmes believed the clues were all to the mine. The Holmes manuscript has some truth in it about the mine. I know again I'm stating this as fact, I'm sorry but I can't help myself.

 

[Old]

quoted......."The museum was given to rights to republish the book. Gregory E. Davis....."

By whom?

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

By the author. Gregory E. Davis

 

[Old]

By the author. Gregory E. Davis

Now THAT really is interesting. Care to elaborate?

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

No because we are getting off the subject of this thread. Gregory E. Davis

 

[sdcfia]

My friend I have 30 or more good ores samples in my yard , I can tell you where everyone of those samples comes from , I have seen 16 to 1 ore , Mad Mamtha , Idarado , Tomboy, Yankeboy , I have spent 32 years studying ores . I can tell you just by looking , which ore is which , I not a treasure hunter per say , But one hell of a geologist , I have spent years on the microscope also , You could put this to the test if you like , Just sent Gold to my house and I will tell you where it is from .
If a sample did exist ,that was a know good sample , ICP and other tests could prove this . The impurities although would be the same if you did gold + 60 element , the percentages my not be exact , but one may contain or not contain certain elements or conditions , like supergene or hypo gene conditions . If I were you I would quit hunting treasure and start hunting those conditions , might be a faster way to find the Dutchman , Satellite scans , radar, sonar , and the magnetometer. The good old eye , most good mines have a lot of secondary enrichment , Iron is the mother of gold right , look for that Rusty spot on Google earth , A ridge with a diamond collapse , I found it . It was just my observation that it looked like Smuggler Union to me of little experience , But it does not look like 16 to1 , Sunnyside , Mayflower , Mad Mutha , Old Hat , etc , and a note to Joe is not the gold from Tayopa , Placers de Parma 22 ct. and this was one way to know it was Tayopa , and what of El Naranhal , or Orange Gold , All the Gold I was mining in Mexico was 89.2 % on 98 % of 34 tests, and 89,1 on the others , I started Mining in about 1981 Have worked the mines ever since Have worked in Washington , Oregon , Colorado , Missouri , Arizona , Nevada , All of the Gold in these mines were Different . So for someone to assume I don't know what I'm talking about would be wrong , I'm no rookie .

PS. If you have some Platinum ore I can work that too .

I guess I am living in PA instead of NM now , For someone is watching me , was just searching for a store near me , and I live in PA .

Interesting, P77. If somebody could round up identified ore samples from all the collectors like you, then we'd have a decent starting point from which to compare the origins of mystery rocks. Thirty good samples from different producing mines is more than I've seen in one place, except perhaps from my old acquaintance Buddy in Ouray back in the day.

By the way, you needn't worry - I quit "treasure hunting" per se quite a number of years ago when I determined that most (if not all) of the tales are sufficiently disinformative as to preclude any "recovery". This is the point where the real treasure hunts begin, not for caves of gold bars, but for information.