SURFACED and SLUICED

[SCROUNGER]

Here's a question for you longtime detectorists out there.
I've been doing well with my 2300 on an area that has been surfaced i presume by hand (no water nearby). I've also been looking at (but not detected there yet) a surfaced area in Talbot State Forest (Rileys Gully) that has been surfaced but i think by sluicing. Did the old timers surface areas with water (sluicing) or did they just sluice deeper gully areas, and if they did use water, are those areas likely to have less small gold left lying around due to the sluicing. Thanks fellas in advance.

 

[SCROUNGER]

Hmmmm, seems people either don't know the answer, don't understand the question the way it's been written (probably), or do know but don't want to tell!!

 

[toecutta]

i dont know but am lurking cos its a good question

 

[SCROUNGER]

Thanks toecutter. I'm heading out there tomorrow so i suppose i'll find out one way or the other soon enough!

 

[Ramjet]

Hmmmm, seems people either don't know the answer, don't understand the question the way it's been written (probably), or do know but don't want to tell!!

Not everyone on the forum would be able to answer your question Scrounger. We all have different areas of interest.
Maybe the people who are able to answer haven't logged in between you a king your question and making the comment above
Hopefully someone will be along to help you out. Good luck with it.

Cheers

Ramjet.

 

[condor22]

I will stand corrected if wrong, but it's been my understanding that surfacing as we know it has been done by machine i.e. bulldozer and in more modern times.
Because of, in this day and age, a lack of running water (unless heavy rain for some time) in State Forests that we can prospect, it would be logical to assume that in some if not many cases that material may have been refined elsewhere.

I doubt there was much meaningful surfacing done during the gold rush days.

Perhaps one for the history books or Google.

 

[user 4485]

I doubt there was much meaningful surfacing done during the gold rush days.

There was plenty done. Vast areas in fact particularly in NSW & Vic.

"The Chinese introduced an effective method of processing large tracts of especially rich ground. They 'surfaced' or stripped all of the soil and rock above bedrock and carted it to a puddler to be washed. A 'surfaced' area indicates that once the ground was particularly rich."
Source: http://www.gold-nuggets.org/finding-gold-nuggets-areas.htm

This "surfacing" was manually done with hand tools & not always carted to a puddler but somewhere it could be washed.
In areas where there was a supply of water the old timers hydraulic sluiced. They would use high pressure water to strip rich areas down to the clay bottom or bedrock & the wash would run through a sluice.
Some might disagree but "surfacing" is really any method that was used to remove an area of rich ground down to bottom. This is now done by mechanised means & on much larger scale which can also now be for much lower grades. Examples of what could be considered modern day surfacing are bulldozer pushing (small scale), strip mining (small scale), strip mining/open pit (large scale). Large scale mining though would be mostly chasing deeper ore body deposits rather than alluvial deposits sought after in smaller scale mining. If you watch "Gold Rush" that is basically modern day surfacing they are doing using machinery to extract the rich ground down to a foot or so below bedrock.
Modern methods are obviously a lot more efficient & effective hence lower grade areas being viable but even now are selective as to what their cut off grade is & can leave the really low grade bedrock tops behind. The old timers methods weren't as efficient & also weren't always effective in recovering all of the gold. Pockets of rich ground were missed due to not taking the full width, undulating bottoms etc. etc. although the Chinese were known to be particularly good at recovering most of the gold.

 

[grubstake]

According to the history books, surfacing was done from the earliest days of the Victorian goldrush - see extract from History of the Wedderburn Gold Fields below:

As far as I'm aware, sluicing was never feasible in the Golden Triangle area owing to the scarcity of water; instead, puddlers were constructed and dams built to fill them and keep them topped up. Then drayloads of potential paydirt were carted to them by miners and washed (for a fee) by the puddler operators.

Others will doubtless have access to better historic resources and comment further.

Thanks mbasko - my typing wasn't quick enough!

 

[SCROUNGER]

Fantastic all, the area i'm talking about in Talbot State Park (GT) had access to plenty of water via a very extensive privately owned, pay for use, water race apparently, hence my question about whether those areas that have been surfaced nearby would have been done so more effectively than those where soil had to be taken to puddlers. I'm trying to determine whether a surfaced area that had plenty of water (not modern day) would have been stripped of gold more effectively than one that didn't?

Ramjet, understand that. My second post was written tongue in cheek to get some response happening. Hope i didn't offend. The knowledge on this forum is immense i reckon and i'm on a very steep learning curve, it's fascinating.

 

[Goldtarget]

All I can really add for sure is this. I visit two surfaced areas well known by prospectors that was by hand and puddled. Outside the perimeters you can still find gold both with a shovel ( hard work) and detectors ( slow and patience). The 2300 has had success on the surfaced area. Even back then Noone got it all.

That said they did a pretty good job, and modern detectors since have cleaned up most of the crumbs. A surfaced area as others have said means the richness of the area was equal to the return of stripping. I have done ok digging in gullies in proximity. Each area tells as story, interpretation of that story may increase your chances of success.

 

[dwt]

Look for areas just outside of where they surfaced, or see if they didn't travel high or low enough when they were surfacing, exposed tree bases, detectable gravel bars ect, ect.

 

[user 4485]

Fantastic all, the area i'm talking about in Talbot State Park (GT) had access to plenty of water via a very extensive privately owned, pay for use, water race hence my question about whether those areas that have been surfaced nearby would have been done so more effectively than those where soil had to be taken to puddlers. I'm trying to determine whether a surfaced area that had plenty of water (not modern day) would have been stripped of gold more effectively than one that didn't?

Ramjet, understand that. My second post was written tongue in cheek to get some response happening. Hope i didn't offend. The knowledge on this forum is immense i reckon and i'm on a very steep learning curve, it's fascinating.

Using hydraulic sluicing or high pressure water was more efficient I.e quicker & less labour intensive but wasn't as effective. They got a lot of gold this way but also left a lot especially where the clay or bedrock bottom undulated leaving behind low pockets.
The Chinese were much more effective manually removing soils down to the bottoms. It wasn't as efficient being much more labour intensive but the Chinese had the numbers to effectively do it.

 

[isolation]

Would the surfacing done by the old timers usually happen where the bedrock was only a few feet deep? Or could it also be in the form of deeper wider gullies?

 

[grubstake]

Surfacing was commonly only inches deep in the Golden Triangle. In my experience, taking off 'a few feet' would be a good indication of very rich ground, as puddling costs vs gold returns would have eaten any profits if too much prospective paydirt was processed. Surfacing that produced 'deeper wider gullies' would likely mean extremely rich ground, for the same reason.

 

[user 4485]

I have read one report that said: "960 loads of surfacing has been puddled (by surfacing I mean 1 to 10 feet) returning 5dwt per load". That was Temora Goldfield.
In those days only proven rich ground would have been stripped or surfaced & due to the manual nature of the work, labour needed etc. then where it started & finished width wise & depth wise would also be governed by return per load. If it wasn't payable/started to peter out they moved on. If it was continuing to pay they kept working. Thats why good gold can be found on the edges etc. sometimes.

 

[SCROUNGER]

I've been concentrating on the actual surfaced areas to date, but as stated, those areas no doubt get a hammering and pickings are getting slimmer. I need to work outside the surfaced areas and just put in the hours. The biggest problem i have is maintaining confidence that i'm not working in ground that's too deep for the 2300. I definitely need to put in more time just getting a handle on interpreting the ground.

 

[SCROUNGER]

What do you mean 'by shovel' goldtarget? Do you dig soil where you think/know gold is and them pan or sluice it. Or are you doing it on a larger scale? If by hand are you taking soil from the edges of surfaced areas or sinking deeper holes near reefs? Tell me to mind my own business if i shouldn't be asking this.

 

[Roscoe]

Scrounger, A lot of surfacing was carried out by the old timers around rich leaders. They would surface the area and cart the soil to the river and sluice it. Then they dug pits and costeans to follow the veins to see if the vein showed more promise. A lot of rich soil was processed this way, i referenced this from Gold and ghost. I have visited some of these sights mentioned in the book and they surfaced down to the bed rock, but the soil in that area was only about 30 cm deep at most.

 

[Goldtarget]

What do you mean 'by shovel' goldtarget? Do you dig soil where you think/know gold is and them pan or sluice it. Or are you doing it on a larger scale? If by hand are you taking soil from the edges of surfaced areas or sinking deeper holes near reefs? Tell me to mind my own business if i shouldn't be asking this.

Didn't see your question till now. Yes mate I've dug and washed near surfaced areas. But as a caveat let me say this, each area mat be assessed on its individual merits. Some of the gold counts from my area I have done this are mind boggling but the amount of material they moved equally so. On this particular site they literally took the hillside, down to bedrock. On the opposing side of the gully they dug heavily. The ground was rich and is reflected in the naming of the site. Digging by hand is no less effort today as was then.

The area has seen much bodied gold even in recent times with detectors. I pulled out a couple grams from the gully all drift. The original workings were obviously in the right and richest place. All I can say for sure is in this particular location there has been success in detecting and washing along and adjacent the surfaced areas. Many people used to speck after rains. It's a very dry site water was always and continues to be an issue. Like all old workings use the details in front of you to guide your course of action.

Uphill they put in deeper holes and drives. Much of the historic reporting focuses on the downslope though and the returns from the en devours. Little water and the buzz of new locales that were rushed are factors here, and I have no doubt once the payable slope was worked for the best returns and the diggings bottomed they moved on for the chance of better returns. Many shafts were created post alluvial boom in the surrounding locales and it was these that accounted for the most effort and return post initial rush.

 

[SCROUNGER]

Thanks roscoe and goldtarget, fascinating stuff, really interesting stuff and thanks for the replies. How good would it be to have a time machine and go back and see the activity that must have been occurring to surface some of those areas down to bedrock when the rush was on?