Your Opinion On Typical Depth Of Buried Caches

[gunsil]

Karl Von M says in his treasure hunter's manual that most caches will not be below arm's length depth (say 2-2&1/2 feet). I believe he was correct, and that most will be more shallow than that. This normally applies to larger caches, as stated above many smaller ones are in houses or outbuildings. Also as stated above flower gardens are common, I had a friend whose grandmother had silver dollars stashed in hers. A modern detector with a large coil (17-18") should be able to hit a jar of coins at 18" or better. A PI detector with that size coil should be able hit the jar of coins at two feet. Karl also said that if outside, the cache would usually be visible from the bedroom window.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[TerryC]

Welcome and I hope you get the pleasure of finding a cache, I haven't found one yet after detecting for almost fifty years,

Here's some tips I've read through the years about caches;

90% of the time, if someone hid a cache, it was inside the house.

Agree with GA Boy, caches have been hidden under a wooden fence post. Walk fence lines and look for a post that isn't stapled to the barbed wire, but is resting on the wire using nails so it can easily be lifted out. I recall a true story from a successful cache hunter that was asked to find a cache hidden by the grandfather of the individuals asking for the help. The cache hunter asked them what their grandfather did when he wasn't working on the farm and they showed him the rocking chair he would sit on every evening.

They asked why he wanted to know this and he stated, "He's watching his money"! The cache hunter sat in the rocking chair and he could plainly see a distant fence line. He walked to the fence line and immediately found the unattached post, lifted it out and pulled out mason jars filled with coins.


Another tip is to look at any older trees in the yard that have limbs reasonably close to the ground. Look at the bottom side of the limbs for any nails or screws. People would attach a string with a weight to the nail or screw and the cache was buried where the weight touched the ground.

VERY good post, SD. May I add that ALL fence post caches will never be deeper than arm's length. Deeper would defeat the purpose of the location. Very nice post. TTC

 

[TerryC]

Here is a location that was told to me years ago. Install a nail into the inside of a stone well at arm's length. Hang the cache down into the shadowy depths where no eyes will see. TTC

 

[Kace]

It's been my experience 2'-2.5' depth of holes...so whatever is in them is closer to the surface obviously. There's some really good and informative posts on this thread too.

A smallish safe I found was buried in an approximate 28"-30" deep hole...the safe was 18" in depth...it was laying on it's back in the hole, So the front of it really wasn't very deep at all and had several rocks on it with dirt on the surface. Had it been on end, they would have had to dig a much deeper hole. It's my opinion...They didn't want to dig a deeper hole.

I kinda look at what the ground is like, if it's really rocky.. It's Doubtful anyone is going to have dug a very deep hole. If you're in an area without rocky soil, it could be someone went a little farther down. I just have never seen anything buried very deep at all due to wanting quick access without drawing attention to what they were doing.

Kace

 

[TerryC]

It's been my experience 2'-2.5' depth of holes...so whatever is in them is closer to the surface obviously. There's some really good and informative posts on this thread too.

A smallish safe I found was buried in an approximate 28"-30" deep hole...the safe was 18" in depth...it was laying on it's back in the hole, So the front of it really wasn't very deep at all and had several rocks on it with dirt on the surface. Had it been on end, they would have had to dig a much deeper hole. It's my opinion...They didn't want to dig a deeper hole.

I kinda look at what the ground is like, if it's really rocky.. It's Doubtful anyone is going to have dug a very deep hole. If you're in an area without rocky soil, it could be someone went a little farther down. I just have never seen anything buried very deep at all due to wanting quick access without drawing attention to what they were doing.

Kace

I suspect it was deep enough but shallow enough to be entered when necessary without digging it up completely. TTC

 

[Dave Rishar]

I would venture to say that nearly all of the cache’s found in the last 60 years were found with a metal detector.

That's a tough one to have a firm opinion on, as we can't know how many caches were quietly recovered with no one the wiser. However, in terms of the ones that make the news, it seems that more often than not no detector is required - they're completely accidental. In fact, if you were to pin me down on a guess about the nature of "nearly all" caches, I'd say that nearly all were concealed, and nearly all were found by accident.

The nearest thing to an attempt at documenting America's history of recovered caches is "Numismatic Finds of the Americas," by Kleeberg. It's by no means definitive because again, we can't know how many finds are undocumented; we can only know about the ones that were. And because we don't know the ratio of documented to undocumented finds (and can't), it's impossible to use it for accurate statistical analysis. However, I'm willing to take at face value that the ratio of types of documented finds are probably similar to the ratio of types of undocumented finds. If we can accept that this is valid, the vast majority of non-shipwreck finds are complete accidents. I have not bothered to actually organize everything in there by type, but a few scenarios seem to come up very consistently:

1. Cache was found while gardening.
2. Cache was found while plowing field.
3. Cache was found during building demolition.
4. Cache was found while enlarging basement.

I'll get back to why this is exactly how I'd expect most caches to be found later on in this post.

Personally, I don’t think they would be buried very deep, just enough to keep it out of site and avoid accidental discovery.

Exactly, particularly if it was buried before metal detectors became commonplace. But even after that, there are some very good reasons to go shallow - namely, that you don't want anyone seeing you burying something valuable as that might raise suspicion. Thus, the quicker the hole can be made and covered, the better. The same goes for when it's time to make a "withdrawal" from your cache.

This would explain why so many caches have been found by people working in their gardens, sowing crops, or in the case of the Saddle Ridge Horde, simply taking a walk: the stuff simply wasn't buried very deeply. I'm forced to admit that because we can't know what we can't know, it's possible (but I don't think probable) that there is way more loot buried just deep enough to avoid casual finds and metal detectors...but because we can't know that, it doesn't logically make sense, and we're not going to find something like that except by accident, it's probably best not to spend too much time thinking about it.

When I read about hidden money being found it’s usually not buried. It’s under the chicken coop, or in a hollow beam in the barn, under a floor board, under a step, in a mine shaft, ect.

Oh, plenty of it was buried; we know that because it was found buried. But stuff has been found in discarded clothing, inside the walls of buildings, concealed within old furniture (Kleeberg documented a few of these, where an old piece of furniture was diassembled for refurbishment and money was found concealed in it), etc. People can be very clever when hiding things. But it seems that most of the time, they went with the tried-and-true method of burying it.

Think about it...largest risk is someone seeing you bury the valuables, or visiting the cache.
You going to dig a 3’ hole?

Exactly, which is why I'd bet that the only reason we haven't seen more documentation of people turning up buried treasure in their basements is because a significant portion of the finders never told anyone about it. Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't. But if I were going to hide something valuable near my home...well, under the basement floor is about perfect in terms of balancing security and convenience.

One thing I learned is that some times money was placed between the stacked foundation stones as they were building victorian homes. It was supposed to bring good luck similiar to breaking a bottle over the stern of a new ship.

Do I have any proof of this? My dad found two gold coins that were from the corner of a stone foundation. Might be something to that..

Kleeberg documented a lot of those. The trend there is that it is usually very little money...just a few coins at most, usually with the date that the building was erected. Again, we can't know how many haven't been documented, but I'll bet that most of these were. The value amounts are not such that people would be worried about lawsuits, and the discovery would generally involve multiple witnesses.

Put yourself in the shoes of the workman that's prying apart a stone chimney during a demolition and you find a silver dime from 1880. Would you take that secret to the grave with you, or would you say to me (the guy hauling the stones out to the truck), "Hey Dave, check this out! I found a dime behind the mantle!"

Karl Von M says in his treasure hunter's manual that most caches will not be below arm's length depth (say 2-2&1/2 feet). I believe he was correct, and that most will be more shallow than that. This normally applies to larger caches, as stated above many smaller ones are in houses or outbuildings. Also as stated above flower gardens are common, I had a friend whose grandmother had silver dollars stashed in hers. A modern detector with a large coil (17-18") should be able to hit a jar of coins at 18" or better. A PI detector with that size coil should be able hit the jar of coins at two feet. Karl also said that if outside, the cache would usually be visible from the bedroom window.

To go back once again, we can only make accurate guesses about what has been found, not what might be found later or is never found at all. It could be that 95% of the caches out there are buried at 100 feet or deeper...we'd never know, because nobody is going to find one of those by accident. However, Karl's opinion seems firmly rooted in logic to me. There are practical considerations for burying something of value and if it's deeper than my arm is long, we're now talking about real work (and time!) involved in burying it, and then I'm going to need a tool of some sort to retrieve it.

Let's go back to those four scenarios that I mentioned earlier. For #1 and #2, the cache was buried outside of the house, but likely where it could easily be seen from the house. These are also places where someone could reasonably be expected to be seen digging on a regular basis, which means that if someone is observing me pulling weeds and planting flowers (as if they would observe me doing this in the first place, as it's not very exciting to watch), their first thought would be that I'm simply doing some gardening, not burying treasure. The fact that that garden (or that field where the crops are) is right outside my window and is a place I frequently walk through is just a bonus. This is actually more clever than it initially appears.

For #3 and #4, we've eliminated the possibility of outside observation. In fact, if something is to be interred inside a wall or under a basement floor, not only is the work located where random people will not see it and have no reason to be, but we maintain a cover story: I'm ripping that wall out to replace it because it's got water damage and I'm enlarging my root cellar, not burying treasure in my wall or basement.

 

[TerryC]

You covered it well, Dave. Good post. TTC

 

[cactusman]

I would say that most caches will be buried at arm’s length or less. The reasons are simple if you think about it…

First, think like the hider of the cache. In addition to knowing what type of cache was put down, during your research of a cache you need to put yourself into the shoes of the person(s) doing the hiding. Mindset, time, cache size, weather, time of day, type of soil, location, etc.

If it’s an outlaw cache, it’s probably going to be shallow, as that type of cache is usually put down in haste, and the outlaw(s) certainly didn’t want to be seen burying anything, much less caught in the act. Plus, how many bandits carried shovels?

If it is a “bank” for the rural farmer who is either too far away from banks to make regular deposits or just someone who doesn’t trust banks, a cache will be at arm’s length, but probably closer to 8-10 inches, as if someone wanted to add or withdraw funds it needed to be convenient.

If it’s a long-term cache, it could be deeper of course, but if it was put down before the advent of modern metal detectors why would someone dig down many feet, especially if the soil was hard? If you’ve ever dug a deep hole, you’ll quickly realize how tiring it is. Plus, when it comes time to retrieve the cache, how long would someone want to be digging for? Food for thought…

Cache retrieval; if you need to retrieve a cache, if you buried it more than arm’s length, it would take a considerable amount of effort to do so. So, the question would be why create the extra work? Unless there is some valid reason, why would someone dig a huge deep hole? (Again, think like the hider.)

Most people are lazy. Creative, yes, but digging down much more than 2-3 feet will be highly unlikely. Where caches could be deeper would be under a rock pile, or existing ledge, and the soil/rock being stacked/slid over the cache.

Most modern quality VLF metal detectors capable of operating in the true all-metal mode can locate a cache, if they are equipped with a large search coil (10-15 inches.) A smaller search coil used for hunting coins in a park can easily miss a cache. A large search coil may only gain a couple of inches on coin-sized objects, but on jar sized objects the gains will be much greater, due to the much larger detection field produced by the coil.

A pulse-induction detector also makes for a great cache hunting machine, as they punch down deeper than VLF detectors do. They do not offer the discrimination capabilities of VLF machines, but when you are cache hunting you will not want to be using discrimination anyway.

Two-box type detectors detect deeply, and are very good choices on large objects, and they allow you to cover a large amount of ground quickly and efficiently.

Which type of detector to get is up to the cache hunter and their budget, but I would suggest at least two of the above, if not all three.

Be sure to use headphones and take your time. When you get to an area that you have researched don’t break out your detector until you have took a moment to walk around and survey things, all from the point of the hider(s) as best as you can, as that time, much like time put in on research, is time that is well spent.

 

[Dave Rishar]

I realize that while addressing other points, I never actually answered any of your questions. I apologize for this.

What depths are caches usually buried at?

If documented finds are any indicator, they're fairly shallow. Documented finds do not necessarily tell us how deep undocumented finds are, but logic would dictate that they'd be shallow enough for a metal detector to find, especially if they were interred before metal detectors were a thing.

Do you use handheld coil models in cache hunting?

No, but I'm not a cache hunter. It should be said that before metal detectors existed, there were cache hunters looking for caches.

Are there any special models on the market today that punch deeper?

Yes, but given the evidence available to me, I would not spend the money on one if I were a cache hunter.

Would you go ahead and buy a box detector and avoid the 'regular' coil type?

I would only buy a box detector if I had very good evidence that something was buried very deeply at a certain location. Even then, I'd be wondering if the juice was worth the squeeze. If the machine doesn't pass over the cache and/or I'm not skilled enough to interpret what it tells me, I'm not going to find what I'm looking for. That's more uncertainty than I'm willing to spend money on. However, if I'm already there swinging a "regular" machine, most documented caches are fairly shallow, and I have some ideas about where someone might bury something outside of their house...well, what's the harm of really hammering around that big old tree that's twenty feet away from the kitchen window?

 

[tinpan]

I realize that while addressing other points, I never actually answered any of your questions. I apologize for this.



If documented finds are any indicator, they're fairly shallow. Documented finds do not necessarily tell us how deep undocumented finds are, but logic would dictate that they'd be shallow enough for a metal detector to find, especially if they were interred before metal detectors were a thing.



No, but I'm not a cache hunter. It should be said that before metal detectors existed, there were cache hunters looking for caches.


Yes, but given the evidence available to me, I would not spend the money on one if I were a cache hunter.


I would only buy a box detector if I had very good evidence that something was buried very deeply at a certain location. Even then, I'd be wondering if the juice was worth the squeeze. If the machine doesn't pass over the cache and/or I'm not skilled enough to interpret what it tells me, I'm not going to find what I'm looking for. That's more uncertainty than I'm willing to spend money on. However, if I'm already there swinging a "regular" machine, most documented caches are fairly shallow, and I have some ideas about where someone might bury something outside of their house...well, what's the harm of really hammering around that big old tree that's twenty feet away from the kitchen window?

Hi .Those who work and live transit have not foundations, windows or fence lines , Wishing for a bank with wagon wheels . Seems best somewhere out site to put your cache. TP

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ask yourself: if an object is buried 1 ft. deep, vs 10 ft. deep . And the top/surface is "ruffled up". Then which depth lends it "better hidden" ? NEITHER DEPTH. It is equally hidden no matter 1 ft. vs 10 ft, as long as the top is imperceptible . Eh ?

Yet for some reason, in the "treasure lore" mindset : The bigger the treasure, the more deeply it must be buried. And no good treasure legend isn't "6 meters deep" with booby traps, conspiracy theories, skeletons, etc.... In fact: The more components like that, that you add: THE MORE TRUE IT IS !

 

[Tommybuckets]

Yes the deeper you dig the more and longer the ground disturbance is obvious. Elbow deep beside the stone at the gardens edge or along the foundation. In a wall etc makes more sense. Are you trying to hide the valuables forever or just until you get back home from a long trip?

 

[Kace]

I suspect it was deep enough but shallow enough to be entered when necessary without digging it up completely. TTC

You are Exactly right...It had been added to over quite a few years... No doubt some taken too, but it was placed for a quick entry without removing the whole thing.

Kace