Barthonis

I'd be interested in getting anywhere from 2-5, depending on the final product. WOn't be at GWSIV though, so I'd need them shipped. I'm looking forward to seeing what the final product looks like!

Hey CacheDragons...... Is this coin gonna be an I.G.O. coin, or is it your own personal coin? Just curious 'cuz I usually check in on the IGO forums and your post here was the first I'd heard of an Iowa coin. At any rate, I'd be interested in 4, possibly more once I see the final product. But for sure 4 if they remain gc.com trackable. Jeff

Woohoo!!!!! Got my order in before all the coinclubbers and ebayers gobbled them all up!

well, got my 4 bronze ordered, but too late for the silver.....alas...the story of my life.

combat veteran here....operations desert shield and storm. 11Bravo US Army 1st Armored Division Please put me down for a gold coin, and if a silver becomes available i would like one of those too, but if not then no worries here. I can provide copy of DD214 if necessary. Thanks, Jeff

woohoo...got mine ordered today.

got my order in, hope it was in time.

new to geocoin collecting, and would be interested in one if you find any extras or someone backs out of there order. Would share with as many folks here in Iowa and around the midwest. Thanks, Jeff

please put me down for one.

put me down for one too please!!!

I just started to collect geocoins, and would like to be placed on a waiting list for one if possible (not greedy, only want one for myself). Thanks for making a really cool looking coin, and for making it trackable on gc.com to boot! Jeff

I just started collecting geocoins and would like to buy one of these if there are any left. I'd be paying via paypal. Just let me know. Thanks!

ordered 4 tonight via paypal. thanks

I just found out about all these personal and trackable geocoins about a week ago (thanks Mike). WOW, been caching for a little over 2 years now and all this time I only thought there were the USA geocoins and the Moun10Bike coins. I gotta read the forums more often!!! Would love to get my hands on an unregistered 2005 Ohio coin, but I've just started collecting geocoins. So I don't have any to trade. I'd be willing to buy one from someone who has an extra. Could do it paypal style, nice and easy. Just let me know if anyone out there is interested. Thanks, Jeff

just ordered 4, waiting patiently for paypal invoice.

paypal'd for 2 coins today!

I would agree with the others.....if they want it, drop it in another cache and email them with the cache info of where the coin is.

would love 4 of the metal ones, and I'll get the paypal sent tonight (as soon as my wife gets home and let me know her paypal password ) Oh, i'd like 2 silver and 2 gold please

would buy 5 if trackable on geocaching.com. maybe 1 if trackable elsewhere (though i doubt it) none if not trackable at all Barthonis **yes I'm an icon whore, but so be it**

got my order in today for 2

Yes it does for those of us with no interest in going over to the Waymarking.com website. Just because you may want to play the waymark game, does not mean there aren't others that want nothing to do with it. Not really, different site, different categories, different "approvers", different set of rules...in a word...different. You're right there.....Waymarking is NOT geocaching... chances are....if the virtuals were really good ones, then they were already approved for geocaching....hence the restrictions on virtuals the last couple years. Sure, I'll admit there are some lame virts out there, but the vast majority I've found so far (and yes I've even submitted one for approval and gotten turned down) have been very good and would not have been able to have had a physical container placed nearby. The problem is, those of us that want virts to stay on geocaching aren't asking for more, we're asking for those caches to remain where they are currently. It's a benefit for you and the others on Waymarking to have them moved over there, but for those of us who want them to remain on geocaching, it is anything but a benefit. A hopeful assumption IMHO. The request is simply if you're going to strip geocaching of the locationlesses, then please leave the current virtuals here to stay. Afterall, they do have a physical location at the end of the hunt, and a means of verification that you've been there, which is all the paper logbook in a physical cache is for. Jeff

Thank the powers that be. My earthcache is safe from becoming a waymark!!! At least for now. Jeff

oh, I almost forgot.... The break-up letter you wrote was VERY funny Jeremy. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I've lost my sense of humor. Jeff

Not hard at all, you search for nearby caches the same as always, and you go to WM.com to search for nearby waypoints.....and if the ideas of adding a link to the cache page for "nearest waymarks" is implemented, then it is even easier yet. It makes alot of sense actually. Nearly everyday, laws are made that include "grandfather clauses". From this day on, the new law/ordinance/whatever is now this, but if you already have the old stuff, you are allowed to be "grandfathered in". The caches that are on GC.com are simply allowed to be grandfathered, and all new locationless and virts, etc will have to be submitted thru WM.com. Simple. No moritorium for years then all of a sudden yank them.....you instead announce the end of new locationlesses and virts on GC.com and also announce the opening of WM.com. Simple. I respect your right to an opinion, but I disagree entirely. The best solution, in my opinion, is to leave the existing locationlesses and virts, etc on GC.com and begin all new caches of that type on WM.com. I hope that Jeremy has not closed his decision making on this topic. I'm offering up a solution that I believe will please alot more of the general geocaching population and create less angst/stress/bad feelings. I have discussed this with other local geocachers in my town and many are of similar feelings that they enjoy the virts/locationlesses and would like them to remain on GC.com. I hope that Jeremy will give this some additional consideration. Jeff committed "geocacher"

Just an open letter/post to Jeremy and TPTB (which is pretty much Jeremy I guess )...... Why do the locationless caches, virts and any other "no-box-of-goodies-at-the-end-of-the-cache" caches HAVE to leave GC.com for WM.com? What does it hurt to leave them up on GC.com for those of us that like hunting them? You can just issue an announcement that no new virts will be allowed on GC.com and that the loctionlesses and virts that are active now will be left for our logging enjoyment and that any new virtuals/earthcaches/locationlesses will need to be submitted through WM.com. The cache owners that want to have their caches stay on GC.com could also list them at WM.com or archive their GC.com and only list it with WM.com or whatever they want to do. I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse here, I just really would like to know why they cannot stay on GC.com and also be on WM.com if the cache owners choose to put them there. And as to the posts I've seen on other threads about the big headache with virts was that the volunteer reviewers were getting hate mail from rejected cache submissions......well, lets get real. A part of the job when you get some authority is that there are some really stupid people out there that you'll offend. Nothing you can do about it. And if they are sending you actual hate-mail...ie, "I know where you live" kinda crap like someone posted, then you ban the offending jerk and move on with your life. I've been in management for quite some time, and there are plenty of jerks out there. If you can't let dumb stuff roll off your back like water on a duck...then maybe you should volunteer for something a bit less stressful. A bit harsh, maybe....but dumb emails like that are just a delete/ban button away. And if you just place a cap on them here at GC.com and tell people that new virts and loctionlesses will have to go through the new site, then that eliminates the source of that problem as well. And those of us that have no desire to use WM.com can still cache for virts and the few remaining locationlesses still active. Everybody wins. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this solution, please. Jeff