All Activity

When a claim is transferred (sold or given) from one owner to another it does not change from one type of claim to another. Neither a transfer of interest nor a claim amendment can change the type of claim from lode to placer. I seriously doubt the Nevada BLM would or could allow the type of mining claim to change from lode to placer. Read the regulations they are quite clear on these points, there is no gray area. The new owners may have relinquished the lode claims and relocated the approximate area as new placer claims but there is no process that could change an existing lode claim in

Thanks guys Prospecting season is rapidly approaching and I'm pushing to have this up and running in another month.

Hey Mitchel, have you asked the Nevada Division of Minerals? If not give a call and they can give you all the info you need. 775 684-7040 in Carson. -ht

Another AMAZING project Dave! Your skill set is impressive sir!!

Oh my Goodness! What a great story you have here. Someone should take this and pay you to put it in their magazine. Great job. Mitchel

I followed some claim filings in northern Nevada. Lode claims had been filed on the land on a certain date. Several were filed adjacent to each other with adjoining borders. These load claims were sold and the claim filed by the new owners was a placer claim but it used the date of the load claim as the date of discovery. Is that a valid transfer? I know of another instance of a claim in southern California where 'partners' were in dispute over an unclaimed parcel and one filed a placer claim and the other filed a lode claim. They were told by attorneys that if they went to court the

Lookin good bro. Old Tom

I haven't posted anything lately because I've been busy. Now the weather here in Arizona is starting to moderate, it's been fall cleaning time around here. I repaired and repurposed my old garage tent and moved the Bug inside it. It is dry, protected from the sun...and the birds. I pulled the bent front beam off of the car and disassembled and cleaned the good parts for re-use. I had bought a spare beam for 100 bucks and used it as the base for the new beam. Since that gave me two sets of spindles...I decided to make my own raised spindles the Blind Chicken Racing way. If you look at

You can probably file a placer claim over a lode claim and they'll sure take your money but it won't be valid.

This ad is over 2 years old, also unfortunately the member who post it for sale had a fatal accident approximately 6 months after posting this.

HI, DO YOU STILL HAVE THOSE MINELAB GPZ7000????? PLEASE, CAN YOU LET ME KNOW AT MY NUMBER 6028024131 THANKS

Interesting... I appreciate the information. I always thought alluvial gold was basically placer.. I also thought that you can have a placer claim overlay a load claim. Thank you.

Free $50 even takes it home

What would the shipping cost to 85387 be?

There are no circumstances where a placer claim can legally be located over a valid lode claim. IF a placer claim owner discovers a valid lode on their valid placer claim they MAY locate a lode claim for that deposit but the lode is not "over" the existing placer it replaces the placer claim within it's boundaries. The placer claim is reduced by the same number of acres that the lode claim encompasses. These location laws don't seem to make sense unless you realize that the federal government charges twice as much for a lode claim patent as they do for a placer patent. This is about

The way i have always understood it was, is a load claim trumps a placer claim. So if there was a load claim on a piece of ground first, only the owner of the lode claim can file a placer claim on it for it to be valid. But you should differentiate between the 2. Because i believe float minerals that have broke away from the load, no matter the distance found from the lode, are still considered placer right? Its just your responsibility to pick which one will be more profitable to you when you file. Most small miners are not set up to mine a lode claim. I could be wrong, but thats how i have u

I would consider it very disrespectful, and like Clay pointed out, it IS illegal. Since not all hard rock operations chase down the float, you may be able to secure permission...if you ask.

I see the resemblance. I can see why you thought they were the same. Even so raptors are not dinosaurs. A raptor is a modern bird of prey. The dinosaur "Raptor" is a non-scientific, term made up for the Jurassic Park movie franchise. The name "raptor" was derived from shortening the genus name Velociraptor, while the dinosaurs portrayed in the movie were actually modeled after Deinonychus and what is now named the Utahraptor. (thanks go to Michael Trcic)

It's a basic of mining law that every valid claim, whether lode or placer, gives the claimant the right to all the valuable minerals found in their location. Placer gold on a lode claim belongs to the lode claim owner. Lode minerals found on a placer claim belong to the placer claim owner. You can download and read the location rights in the General Mining Act Here.

Hi, Does your question ask about discovering Alluvial/Lode gold on a Placer mining claim? If Yes, then short of starting an argument; on face value, if there is no Lode Claim on this USFS/BLM land and you have found Alluvial/Lode, gold in quartz or rough not stream tumbled smooth, then it would not be Placer gold and not part of the Placer Claim. But, if the Lode gold fell into a creek on a Placer Claim, then I wouldn’t touch it. There are areas here in Amador County where both Placer and Lode Claims are filed by different people on the same property.

Would alluvial/float gold be considered placer? And would anyone feel like this would be a disrespectful move?

Last photo looks like a metal ore of some type. Can you do a streak test and let us know what color the streak is? Compare the "weight" of this sample with a similar sized chunk of agate you have. Hold them at the same time, in different hands, and bounce them up and down in your hand(s). Which one is heavier and give an approx ratio of the heavier one. That is the heavier one is 1, 2,4,6... times heavier than the lighter one. Better photos and close-up photos would be great.

Sorry to say, but that is not a Dino bone. It belongs to a mammal of some sort; most likely a cow or horse. Not a very old bone either.

This is a raptor toe bone found on the internet. It looks similar enough to think it's a dinosaur bone. But after seeing pig humerus i think you're right. Thank you for this identification you made. Now i'm left with a pig bone and broken dreams(Just kidding the truth is the best gift)