I want to know what low down varmint stole Kents Stetson?
Is this position on one of the 1914 lines. Are the 1914 corners evident and independent of this position?
Scott Zelenak, post: 435199, member: 327 wrote: I want to know what low down varmint stole Kents Stetson?
I suspect we are all glad that Kent's picture is cropped right below the neck
Rankin_File, post: 435202, member: 101 wrote: Is this position on one of the 1914 lines. Are the 1914 corners evident and independent of this position?
Both the 1906 and 1914 locations depend upon a senior grant located in 1876. The stone mound that I found yesterday is what I think was built by Mr. Lee in 1906, not an original mark of the 1876 survey. The reason I think that is that the relatively small size of the mound doesn't fit the sort of more substantial mounds that the 1876 surveyor typically made. There is more evidence to be discovered to complete the picture.
[USER=327]@Scott Zelenak[/USER]
Beat me to it, Scott.
My immediate thought was, "Holy theft ring, Batman! Someone has stolen Kent's hat!"
Jon Collins, post: 435165, member: 11135 wrote: Gene,
Does the general rule of whomever is first to patent office is senior? Personally, I've only run into overlapping claims once on a project in the lead-deadwood mining district.
Jon,
The answer to the general rule is no. The normal measure for seniority of conflicting lode mining claims is the date of location. That can be thwarted by the situation where a claimant with junior rights applies for patent that includes the area in conflict with a senior claim (has not applied for patent yet). If the claimant of the senior lode does not file an adverse claim with the GLO (usually there was a 60 day window) the junior claim will be granted a patent that includes the area in conflict with the senior claim. The claimant of the senior claim loses their right to the conflict area by their inaction.
Thanks for the additional information regarding the abandoned corner, Kent.
In Colorado, we have stones not rock mounds or cairns to mark corners. When stones were used to mark corners, the deputy was instructed to use a stone larger than a specified size. The mound of stone near to or around the stone is a corner accessory. I have never run across a situation where a mineral survey corner had a mound of stone erected next to it. The mound always surrounds the stone. While some of my peers elect to replace the original stone with a modern monument, and either bury the original stone upside down near the corner to act as a memorial or place it in the mound of stone, my standard practice is to preserve and perpetuate the original stone. In the past, the BLM often would replace the original stone with a steel post and brass cap. Beginning in the 1980s I notice that they will accept and leave original stones if they determine that that they are firmly set.
Colorado statutes and Board Rules allow licensees to keep the original monument if it is durable. Most stones pass this test; wood posts not so much. If the original stone is leaning over or is lying downhill from the mound I will rehabilitate it to an upright position, and rebuild the mound of stone so that it is firmly reset in the ground. Here are two example descriptions of stone corners that I include in the notes section of my land survey plats. I realize that we disagree on rehabilitating stone mounds. However, in Texas they ARE the monument and in Colorado they are accessories meant to support the stone monument.
Corner No. 2, Silent Friend Lode Claim, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 20504.
Found original stone monument, a quartz monzonite porphyry stone 15 x 5 ins. and protruding 12 ins. above the ground surface with mound of stone. Corner location is the high point of the stone (comes to a point). South face is chiseled with "2-SiF-20504-A". Monument leans downhill, but is solidly set in stone mound. Excavated the wedge of soil from the uphill side of the stone and rotated the stone to a vertical position and tight against the stone mound. Rebuilt the mound of stone. Original call is for a porphyry stone 27 x 14 x 10 ins., 15 ins. in the ground, with a mound of stone.Kept original stone monument. Note: U.S. Mineral Survey 20504 originally included a mill site that was later removed from the survey. The chiseling on the south face of the stone includes a faint ??A? to the right of the survey number ??20504?.
Corner No. 3, Social Fund Lode Claim, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 20504.
Found original stone monument, a quartz monzonite porphyry stone with quartz-sericite-pyrite chemical weathering on east face, 24 x 12 x 6 ins. Stone is fallen over in mound of stone. Reestablished stone by rotating it to a vertical position in the center of a large mound of stone, which was determined to be the best available evidence of the original corner position. North face is chiseled with ??3?. South face is faintly chiseled with "3-SoF-20504-A". Corner location is a faint ??+? on top of stone. Original call is for a porphyry stone 24 x 10 x 7 ins., 13 ins. in the ground, with a mound of stone.The stone was later disturbed by vandals and reestablished in its original position by using the accessories established on September 12, 2001 and included in a monument record filed on January 17, 2002 with the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors.
Note: U.S. Mineral Survey 20504 originally included a mill site that was later removed from the survey. The chiseling on the south face of the stone shows a faint ??A? to the right of the survey number ??20504?.
This is a general comment that I'd like to throw out regarding land surveying. Some seem to think that certain types of land surveys are complex as if saying so repeatedly makes it so. They wail on and on about the complexity of some types of surveys. I'd agree with them if they substituted the term "effort" for complexity. Some surveys require a lot of effort and time to complete, but hardly complex.
Invariably whenever I engage Kent in conversation, he trumpets that metes and bounds surveys in Texas are complex, very complex, extremely complex, you'll never understand how complex they are because you don't survey in Texas, etc. In the past he has postulated that the complexity of Texas metes and bounds surveys can be directly measured by the weight of all the documents collected during the research phase of the survey. BTW, I think you were a bit feverish that day. If that is true then I suggest printing the documents on light-weight Xerox paper to instantly simplify the survey. I have no doubt that some Texas metes and bounds surveys require a tremendous amount of effort, diligence and experience to complete, but that in and of itself doesn't equate to complexity. Nor should it diminish the effort required to conduct surveys in other states.
I find land surveying challenging. Like most of the old, gray-haired gents on this forum I began my survey career at the rear end of a chain. We knew nothing when we started! Over the years through mentoring, education and experience we gained the skills and knowledge to become licensed. A common phrase here is, "that's when the real learning starts".
I'll end this little postscript with a simple thanks to everyone that takes the time to share their experiences and adventures on this forum, even the complex ones. 😉
Gene Kooper, post: 435232, member: 9850 wrote: Thanks for the additional information regarding the abandoned corner, Kent.
In Colorado, we have stones not rock mounds or cairns to mark corners.
As you know, I'm thrilled to hear as much as possible about surveying in PLSSia and I'm sure that other Texas surveyors feel exactly the same way. I mean, just because I don't see any relevance to Texas doesn't mean that there might not be some odd molecule of something worth knowing attached to work in PLSSia somehow. I for one certainly would not dismiss it out of hand until the weight of irrelevant material is so much in excess of anything vaguely pertaining to Texas that dismissal is warranted.
Gene Kooper, post: 435244, member: 9850 wrote: This is a general comment that I'd like to throw out regarding land surveying. Some seem to think that certain types of land surveys are complex as if saying so repeatedly makes it so. They wail on and on about the complexity of some types of surveys. I'd agree with them if they substituted the term "effort" for complexity. Some surveys require a lot of effort and time to complete, but hardly complex.
Invariably whenever I engage Kent in conversation, he trumpets that metes and bounds surveys in Texas are complex, very complex, extremely complex, you'll never understand how complex they are because you don't survey in Texas, etc. In the past he has postulated that the complexity of Texas metes and bounds surveys can be directly measured by the weight of all the documents collected during the research phase of the survey. BTW, I think you were a bit feverish that day. If that is true then I suggest printing the documents on light-weight Xerox paper to instantly simplify the survey. I have no doubt that some Texas metes and bounds surveys require a tremendous amount of effort, diligence and experience to complete, but that in and of itself doesn't equate to complexity. Nor should it diminish the effort required to conduct surveys in other states.
I find land surveying challenging. Like most of the old, gray-haired gents on this forum I began my survey career at the rear end of a chain. We knew nothing when we started! Over the years through mentoring, education and experience we gained the skills and knowledge to become licensed. A common phrase here is, "that's when the real learning starts".
I'll end this little postscript with a simple thanks to everyone that takes the time to share their experiences and adventures on this forum, even the complex ones. 😉
Kent actually did admit Colorado mining surveying is at least as difficult as Texas surveying in a post about 10 years ago on the old forum but he said the rest of PLSSia is easy peasy. That was sort of a feverish debating tactic trying to draw a confession of sorts. I often wonder if Kent is really a homicide detective pretending to be a Surveyor on these forums.
I think the sun rays are adversely affecting a hatless Kent.
Dave Karoly, post: 435262, member: 94 wrote: Kent actually did admit Colorado mining surveying is at least as difficult as Texas surveying in a post about 10 years ago on the old forum but he said the rest of PLSSia is easy peasy.
I think you probably are misrembering that unless you can provide a link. Most likely what I wrote what that it was POSSIBLE that in some rare cases resurveying old mineral claims might approach the difficulties commonly encountered in resurveying original metes and bounds grants in Texas. Eugene has since limited his assertion of difficulty to only the "early" lode claims, which given the history of Colorado mining probably only means the 1850s or 60s, That slender fraction of all mining claims as being somehow difficult does sound about right.
Kent McMillan, post: 435264, member: 3 wrote: I think you probably are misrembering that unless you can provide a link. Most likely what I wrote what that it was POSSIBLE that in some rare cases resurveying old mineral claims might approach the difficulties commonly encountered in resurveying original metes and bounds grants in Texas. Eugene has since limited his assertion of difficulty to only the "early" lode claims, which given the history of Colorado mining probably only means the 1850s or 60s, That slender fraction of all mining claims as being somehow difficult does sound about right.
I'm not here to argue with you, Kent, which is a fruitless endeavor.
http://txls.texas.gov/study-materials
To all us poor PLSS residents, here is a link to some of the sample problems for the Texas exam........................
Kent McMillan, post: 435264, member: 3 wrote: I think you probably are misrembering that unless you can provide a link. Most likely what I wrote what that it was POSSIBLE that in some rare cases resurveying old mineral claims might approach the difficulties commonly encountered in resurveying original metes and bounds grants in Texas. Eugene has since limited his assertion of difficulty to only the "early" lode claims, which given the history of Colorado mining probably only means the 1850s or 60s, That slender fraction of all mining claims as being somehow difficult does sound about right.
No, Kent. Wrong again. I'm talking about the first 11,500 (or so) early mining claims in Colorado (circa Nov. 1867 to Dec. 1886). Over the last 6 years I've created a database of all the mineral survey plats and field notes in Colorado. One of the items that I tracked was whether there were any marginal notations on the plat. The Colorado Surveyors General tracked such things as material errors found by later mineral surveyors and whether amendments were made to the original surveys. Out of those 11,500 plats, I found slightly less than 30% of the plats had notations (3400 plats). Here are four examples (I retraced the third one):
Multiple Amendments to the Cash Creek Placer
Add to that the nearly 4000 mineral survey orders issued between July 1899 and Aug. 1904 where the mineral surveyors were required to falsify their returns when depicting the positions of senior claims and you end up with slightly more than a "slender fraction" that you baldly assert (not intended to be a pun about you missing hat). BTW....in case you are interested there are a total of 28,793 plat sheets and 34,930 sets of field notes for Colorado mineral surveys. Here's my favorite example of fictitious positions of senior lodes (approx. 130 of them). The 15 Alice lodes meander through the section to "include" 46 discontiguous tracts in a mathematical wonderland. The patent (actually 5 patents comprising a total of 149 pages) consisted of a total of 9 acres, but since the area is in the Cripple Creek Mining District the exercise was considered worthwhile. Please note all of the dates in the upper right that denote when the plat and field notes were submitted to the Colorado Surveyor General for review. The mathematical exercise with 46 theoretical tracts only took a couple of years to complete. I take it back. Now that's complex! 😉
I love this forum. I don't need cable TV when I have the KMBC to read. Always makes me feel better knowing that any boundary resolution outside of Texas is, well, inferior. Less liability that way. I was born in Texas, but it's obvious I can't survey there. Way too complex for a simpleton like me.
