Further into the Field

Continuing the gridding of the site of recent entries further into the field, and I finally got a field tell, an old buckle.  Also got a couple of rosies and another sterling ring.  Things are getting thinner and thinner, including a 45 minute stretch without a coin of any type (except a couple of zincolns, and they don’t count), and not much junk either, but experience says press on, and eventually I got the rosies.

The buckle was deep.  I will never hear an old coin at the depth this buckle was, unless it is a half or silver dollar.  If I get a big fish here, that’s what it will be.  We can dream, and that’s what I did, thinking of the flowing hair halfs flying into my pouch.

The weather was beautiful today, 48 degrees, no clouds, no wind.  But a nor’easter is on the way, anywhere from 3-8 inches coming.  Glad I got out today, and toughed it out yesterday; nice to go on hiatus knocking down the silver.

Sadly, there isn’t more. Gridding out a proven site is boring (at least to the reader), but boring is actually good in most endeavors.  Maybe I’ll post that big fish after the snow melts, but I’m not too optimistic on that score.

2 thoughts on “Further into the Field

  1. You find more rings in a week than I do in a year. What an interesting site. Some day when you are done with it I’d love to discuss generalities about it, what was going on there during a relatively short period in the mid 1960s (which is when it looks like a large percentage of your finds there originated, clad and silver, minus the pre-1915 stuff) and further thoughts on the patterns of coins versus perceived traffic patterns and the bedrock. Can you tell I have not detected since late November? Getting antsy. . .

  2. The aerials show activity in the 30s, and I found an IH, barber, and some older wheats in the bedrock area. I just think some of the older stuff is just too deep, and of course there was less density earlier.

    I’ve heard two different stories of what used to be there, neither consistent with each other, and neither consistent with the aerials or old maps I’ve seen. So who knows?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>