Keeping an old cache going...

[+clumzyfly]

GCD5F "Parke Break"

 

Read through all the logs. With all the times it's been replaced, possibly not even in the right spot, should this one really be kept going?

[knowschad]

GCD5F "Parke Break"

 

Read through all the logs. With all the times it's been replaced, possibly not even in the right spot, should this one really be kept going?

Hidden : 6/24/2001Sunday, June 24, 2001

 

Yes, please.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

I haven't read the page yet, but I will. What comes to my mind is the log book. Without the original book is it really the same cache? I'm not saying that every cache should be archived when the log book needs replacing but isn't the point of perpetuating an old cache the continuity to the past? Wouldn't the book be that connection?

[+clumzyfly]

I wonder how many replacements are still out there in different locations. I guess next time I go out and don't find it, I will leave a "replacement" where the gpsr's take me. Seems to be what several others have done. Someone found it recently, but I wonder which replacement they found.

[+clumzyfly]

I haven't read the page yet, but I will. What comes to my mind is the log book. Without the original book is it really the same cache? I'm not saying that every cache should be archived when the log book needs replacing but isn't the point of perpetuating an old cache the continuity to the past? Wouldn't the book be that connection?

 

I doubt the original book is there, since the cache has come up missing several times and replaced. From what I understand, the cahce is a small, but is listed as a regular.

 

Tried a few phone-a-friend lifelines to hopefully confirm the location. Decided it must be MIA and replaced the container where we believe it once was.

 

Got this cache back up and running with a new container. It is a large Lock-N-Lock with camo tape. It is well covered to keep local muggles from spotting it. We were not exactly certain where the original was, but this is where our GPSr took us. Has three of our pathtags for the next finders, plus some swag. Decrypt this for spoiler hints:] It is under the end of the log that is very close to the ATV tracks.

[Bolivar Bill]

My great-grandfather’s axe: I inherited it from my father, who inherited it from his father. My grandfather replaced the handle, and my father replaced the head, and now I still have my great-grandfather’s axe.

[+DragonsWest]

There's a story about the axe of an ancient dwarven king, as related by Terry Pratchett.

 

When the old handle broke was replaced and when the head was too worn or broken it was replaced, but it is still the same axe of the ancient king, because of the continuity.

 

I feel the same way about very old caches. We keep them alive for the tradition of the thing, because if we retire it then one more very old cache has gone. Replacing it with GC2DXYZ won't be continuity.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

My great-grandfather’s axe: I inherited it from my father, who inherited it from his father. My grandfather replaced the handle, and my father replaced the head, and now I still have my great-grandfather’s axe.

And gramps would never recognize it.

[knowschad]

My great-grandfather's axe: I inherited it from my father, who inherited it from his father. My grandfather replaced the handle, and my father replaced the head, and now I still have my great-grandfather's axe.

Okay...!!!

[knowschad]

My great-grandfather's axe: I inherited it from my father, who inherited it from his father. My grandfather replaced the handle, and my father replaced the head, and now I still have my great-grandfather's axe.

And gramps would never recognize it.

Nor would Antiques Roadshow.

[+mtn-man]

With many of the old caches, it wasn't about the container or the logbook. It was about the location. This one looks something like that.

Take a "Parke Break" in the Covered Bridge capital of the world. Enjoy the countryside and the wildlife (deer, raccoons, birds, etc..)

If the location is worth going to, then the community taking care to keep it going seems like a good thing. The point of this one was to get you out into this part of the country it appears. Sounds like a good place. Better than a parking lot lamp post to me. Much more memorable most likely.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

With many of the old caches, it wasn't about the container or the logbook. It was about the location. This one looks something like that.

Take a "Parke Break" in the Covered Bridge capital of the world. Enjoy the countryside and the wildlife (deer, raccoons, birds, etc..)

If the location is worth going to, then the community taking care to keep it going seems like a good thing. The point of this one was to get you out into this part of the country it appears. Sounds like a good place. Better than a parking lot lamp post to me. Much more memorable most likely.

 

If the only reason is to bring people to this place then would not a new cache work better? It would bring back many of those who have already found the old cache as well as those who never did.

[+clumzyfly]

I just went and looked as it is fairly close to my house...here is the new log....

 

I went out to the "GZ" a little about 2 hours ago. I spent a great deal of time scouring the area. I took all the "updated" coords that people have posted. Each goes to a different location that could and might have held a cache at one point They are all a good distance from each other. I did find a "geopile" of bark leaning on a tree, but no cache. There was a few fresh shoe prints right there as well. I figure when I came up to it that this was where the recent finder found it, but there was no cache. I looked around at that "GZ" to no avail. I then moved on to the next one. I had to walk across sand to get to it and didn't see any footprints anywhere so I figured this was not it. However, it did kinda fit the description of what I imagined in my mind before the first time I went there. The third "GZ" was also the one I've been to many times and I still didn't find anything there. It would be nice to know what size container is currently hidden there, along with which set of coordinates to use. I probably looked over about a 1/2 acre area and followed a few geo trails/or deer trails. With someone recently finding it, I didn't go through any of the 4 to 5 foot tall weeds as they would have left a trail if they had walked there. Waiting for someone who found it to please post new coordinates for us.

[+mtn-man]

The nearest cache is a mile away. The next nearest is over two miles away. Plenty of room for many more caches and this one can stay for those that like the experience of finding some of the original caches on the site.

[+clumzyfly]

The only reason I haven't submitted a NA log was the fact that is was so old. Now, it has a recent find, so I think that merits keeping it going. If I ever find it, I will try to adopt it and update the listing. But I need to know where it is first. I emailed the last finder to see if they can help me out a little. This part of Parke County is great. This location is a peaceful place and would merit staying and looking around for a while. I think I heard 1 vehicle(sounded like a small tractor) go by as I was in the woods.

[+briansnat]

The original logbook appears to be gone as is the original container. As the OP mentioned, the cache might not even be in the original hiding spot. The owner appears to be MIA as well.

 

There is nothing left of the original cache, so what is being maintained here other than a listing - a bunch of pixels on a screen?

 

So it's old. That makes it an old cache in distress with an uninterested owner.

 

Old caches and "historic" caches are archived regularly if the situation warrants. I remember when one of the last remaining A.P.E. caches went missing there were a lot of people who wanted it to remain and were willing to replace the cache with a similar container. It was archived anyway because it was argued by some that if it it wasn't the original container it was no longer an A.P.E. cache.

 

I'm in favor of archiving it and letting someone who is willing to maintain a cache there place a new one.

Edited August 12, 2010 by briansnat

[+clumzyfly]

If I find it, I think that I'll adopt it, if allowed.

 

OR

 

The next time it gets a long list of DNFs, I will post the NA log.

[Clan Riffster]

My general rule for applying a "Needs Archived" log is thus:

 

If a cache is in very poor shape, the owner is no longer playing, and the community isn't interested in keeping it alive, it should go away.

 

In this case, it seems that some folks are willing to keep it going, which would remove it from consideration, in my book. Many cachers enjoy the opportunity to add their moniker to the pages of older caches. I happen to be one of them. I love seeing those short GC numbers. Weird, I know. In a game that's only 10 years old, the term "historical" is relative. If I were able to vote on the subject, I would lean toward keeping this one active. As folks don't appear to be chomping at the bit to place new hides in the general area, I can't see that this one is hurting anything, so long as it remains in fairly good shape.

[+fizzymagic]

If I find it, I think that I'll adopt it, if allowed.

OR

The next time it gets a long list of DNFs, I will post the NA log.

Why are you so obsessed with this particular cache? Is it keeping you from placing one of your own? Is it causing problems to the vegetation? Is there some other issue that is making it a nuisance?

 

If not, why not just let it be? Why the need to bring it to the forums and then decide to play cache cop?

 

IMO, geocaching has enough problems; it doesn't need us creating new ones.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I will try to adopt it and update the listing

 

You can only adopt it if you can contact the original owner. Only the listing owner can transfer the listing. If you can do that, do it!

 

Otherwise, the listing is just pixels. There's no active owner, the cache is not original, may not exist, isn't at the coords and isn't the right size. If the cache had been placed in 2006 and was in this condition, it would have long since been archived.

 

Keeping the listing going because of the placed date is just silly. In a sport where there's a lot of silliness, I can generally support the silly - but NOT when there's no owner to monitor the cache or the page.

 

The only reason I can see not to archive is if a new cache could not be placed due to new land manager restrictions. You might email the local current reviewer and ask about that.

[Dj Storm]

The original logbook appears to be gone as is the original container. As the OP mentioned, the cache might not even be in the original hiding spot. The owner appears to be MIA as well.

...

I'm in favor of archiving it and letting someone who is willing to maintain a cache there place a new one.

 

My general rule for applying a "Needs Archived" log is thus:

 

If a cache is in very poor shape, the owner is no longer playing, and the community isn't interested in keeping it alive, it should go away.

...

 

I'm in favor of keeping old caches going (first caches in a country/state/county, or GC+3 caches, more so GC+2 caches). However, when the owner is MIA, the interest of the community in keeping the cache alive is not enough; a geocacher must step forward and assume maintenance of the cache. When several people "look after" a cache, we'll end up with situations like this one, with the cache migrating between several hiding spots, and where nobody knows how many replacements are there in the field.

 

Since 2007 I'm also the unofficial maintainer of a cache placed in 2001. I replaced the container, and the original logbook is on my bookshelf at home (it was full and I replaced it, then during the next maintenance visit I took it home in order to keep it from disappearing). Soon I will replace the container again with a more watertight one.

 

The cache discussed in this thread disappeared several times. Had the owner been active, he would have replaced the cache and logbook, and the cache would still be the "historic" one even if all its parts were replaced. With the owner missing and the community replacing the cache, the situation is similar, with the difference that the maintainers don't know where the cache was originally hidden. The fact that nobody performs regular maintenance, and "patching" the cache is always another cacher's job, is a point against keeping the cache alive.

As much as I love historic caches, I feel this one should be archived, unless someone assumes maintenance of it. The new unofficial maintainer should prepare a container similar to the original (9"x13"x4"). Ask the finders of the original hide where it was placed (CyBret was there twice, maybe he remembers something). Keep maintaining it, and keep improving it (protect against moisture and floods, and hide it from the muggles using the ATV track).

[+clumzyfly]

If I find it, I think that I'll adopt it, if allowed.

OR

The next time it gets a long list of DNFs, I will post the NA log.

Why are you so obsessed with this particular cache? Is it keeping you from placing one of your own? Is it causing problems to the vegetation? Is there some other issue that is making it a nuisance?

 

If not, why not just let it be? Why the need to bring it to the forums and then decide to play cache cop?

 

IMO, geocaching has enough problems; it doesn't need us creating new ones.

 

The issue making it a nuisance is the fact that it is unknown if it is in the original location. It looks as if from the beginning, the coordinates were off. I am all for keeping these "older" caches alive, but as others have said, the original location needs to be known, and placing a similar sized container needs to be done. I am obsessed with this one because I think that if it stays listed, it needs to be done right and I am willing to keep it right once it gets back to that. As someone else stated, if this cache wasn't as old as it is, it would have been archived a long time ago.

[knowschad]

GCD5F "Parke Break"

 

Read through all the logs. With all the times it's been replaced, possibly not even in the right spot, should this one really be kept going?

Hidden : 6/24/2001Sunday, June 24, 2001

 

Yes, please.

 

After looking into the issues more thoroughly, I have changed my mind, and have to agree with Briansnat and others that have said that just because its old is in itself, insufficient reason to keep a neglected cache alive.

 

As for adopting... I really wish they would get rid of that concept altogether, but in this case, it is irrellevant anyhow, since you need to have the cache owner's permission to do so.

[+bflentje]

The only reason I haven't submitted a NA log was the fact that is was so old. Now, it has a recent find, so I think that merits keeping it going. If I ever find it, I will try to adopt it and update the listing. But I need to know where it is first. I emailed the last finder to see if they can help me out a little. This part of Parke County is great. This location is a peaceful place and would merit staying and looking around for a while. I think I heard 1 vehicle(sounded like a small tractor) go by as I was in the woods.

 

Why on God's green earth would you even consider a NA? Geez, some of the arrogant things I read in these forums really pushes me towards geocide (don't worry, I'd never do it in public).

[+BulldogBlitz]

call the ATF... CIA or FBI....or whoever...

 

report that there is a suspicious looking package out there. they'll come out and detonate it. when the news team(s) pepper the internet with stories of (yet another) geocache bomb-scare, GC.com will archive the listing before the sun sets.

 

[+GeoGeeBee]

The only reason I haven't submitted a NA log was the fact that is was so old. Now, it has a recent find, so I think that merits keeping it going. If I ever find it, I will try to adopt it and update the listing. But I need to know where it is first. I emailed the last finder to see if they can help me out a little. This part of Parke County is great. This location is a peaceful place and would merit staying and looking around for a while. I think I heard 1 vehicle(sounded like a small tractor) go by as I was in the woods.

 

Why on God's green earth would you even consider a NA? Geez, some of the arrogant things I read in these forums really pushes me towards geocide (don't worry, I'd never do it in public).

 

Gosh, why would you consider an NA? It's only a cache with bad coordinates, a missing and uninterested CO, that's been in need of maintenance for years. Why on God's green earth would you NOT consider a NA?

[+clumzyfly]

call the ATF... CIA or FBI....or whoever...

 

report that there is a suspicious looking package out there. they'll come out and detonate it. when the news team(s) pepper the internet with stories of (yet another) geocache bomb-scare, GC.com will archive the listing before the sun sets.

 

 

 

What would they think it is? A bomb to blow up the creek.....or the bridge that is a couple hundred feet away that barely gets used. Or maybe a few corn stalks? Hmmmm....might be worth a try. I'm sure those guys could find it. They might find all of the replacements...maybe the original too!

[+briansnat]

The only reason I haven't submitted a NA log was the fact that is was so old. Now, it has a recent find, so I think that merits keeping it going. If I ever find it, I will try to adopt it and update the listing. But I need to know where it is first. I emailed the last finder to see if they can help me out a little. This part of Parke County is great. This location is a peaceful place and would merit staying and looking around for a while. I think I heard 1 vehicle(sounded like a small tractor) go by as I was in the woods.

 

Why on God's green earth would you even consider a NA? Geez, some of the arrogant things I read in these forums really pushes me towards geocide (don't worry, I'd never do it in public).

 

The coordinates are bad, the cache is in poor condition and the owner is not interested in maintaining it anymore. That is a NA in my book.

[Clan Riffster]

Why on God's Gaia's green earth would you NOT consider a NA?

For those of us who would not consider a NA, the question has already been answered. But I'll go over it again.

 

(Or is this one of those snippy, Internet forum rhetorical questions?)

 

This cache page has maintained some degree of continuum for nine years.

Some of us appreciate historical caches, and endeavor to include our monikers in the found columns.

A local has stepped up and offered to keep it going, so maintenance ceases to be an issue.

The cache isn't blocking another one, so it sitting there isn't hurting a thing.

 

Yes, there are many park & grab junkies who have never found a cache more than 3 months old.

Yes, they won't care about the historical aspect of this hobby.

No, their's is not the only voice.

[Clan Riffster]

The issue making it a nuisance is the fact that it is unknown if it is in the original location.

If you do opt to replace and maintain it, know that you'll have the thanks of many cachers. You'll also, apparently, earn the angst of a few cachers. I'm betting your skin is thick enough to handle it. I would suggest that you hide the replacement as close to the posted coords as possible, to eliminate further complaints of inaccuracies. Obviously, you'll need to add it to your watchlist, (if you haven't already), so you'll stay informed of any future issues.

 

Good luck!

[+GeoGeeBee]

Why on God's Gaia's green earth would you NOT consider a NA?

 

This cache page has maintained some degree of continuum for nine years.

Some of us appreciate historical caches, and endeavor to include our monikers in the found columns.

A local has stepped up and offered to keep it going, so maintenance ceases to be an issue.

The cache isn't blocking another one, so it sitting there isn't hurting a thing.

 

 

The only thing "historical" about this cache is the GC number and web page. We're talking about a brand-new container, and a brand-new log, located in sort-of the same area as the old cache might have been (but nobody knows for sure since the coordinates have been off and the cache seems to have moved around a few times).

 

Maintenance is an issue, since the actual owner isn't around to adopt it out. If someone posts a NM log, how is it going to get cleared?

 

I enjoy finding historical caches. My last trip to Atlanta, we went 50 miles out of our way to visit GC1D. I replaced the logbook in the oldest cache in Vance County, NC (the owner hasn't logged in since 2002). But sometimes you just have to let go.

[+lachupa]

I dunno this cache looks like Keith Richards..you know, dead and won't lay down.

[Clan Riffster]

The only thing "historical" about this cache is the GC number and web page.

I think that could be said for a lot of the older caches. None of mine are any where near that old, and I've replaced containers, replaced logbooks, moved them a bit as needed. Should I archive them as well, since the experience isn't identical to the one the FTF had? Or should they stay alive, simply because they have an active owner? If an inactive owner is the only criteria you are using to pronounce your death sentence, then the oldest cache in Georgia, which you linked to, needs to be archived as well, since the owner hasn't logged in at all this year. But wait, you say, that cache has someone willing to maintain it, judging by the latest logs, right? So does the one in the OP.

 

Maintenance is an issue

If the person who started this thread agrees to maintain it, maintenance ceases to be an issue.

The NM logs won't be cleared out, but folks looking at the cache page will be able to see that it is viable.

Kinda like the cache you linked to. There is still a NM showing, since the owner won't/can't clear it.

 

I replaced the logbook in the oldest cache in Vance County, NC (the owner hasn't logged in since 2002).

If you believe that changing out a logbook ends the continuity of a cache, why would you do that? Shouldn't that one be archived as well, since the experience is not the same? Could it be that the "history" doesn't end when the logbook gets full? If that's true, then wouldn't it also be true that the "history" wouldn't necessarily end if the container is changed?

 

Again, the cache in the OP isn't causing any harm. It doesn't appear to be blocking any one from hiding their own cache. It seems that there is a maintenance plan being formulated. I can't help but think that this cache doesn't really need to be archived, right away. I'll add a disclaimer though: If the OP decides not to take on the task, then I think it should go away.

[+clumzyfly]

I have a picture that will get me within 10 feet or so of the original location with a description of how it was hidden. I am told that one of our local reviewers will help out as much as he can in getting this one to stick around.(He will update coordinates for me.) I will go there today or tomorrow and scout the area and find the location in the picture(shouldn't be too hard) and find the best possible way to hide a regular size container as close to the original concept as possible. I should be able to get this pretty darn near the original. And yes I am watching it and I have very thick skin, I am a corrections officer. I consider opinions, but really don't take anything you say as gospel.

[+slackpacker]

Add me to the group that says don't be so quick with the "NA" - IMO, pre-2002 caches deserve some degree of extra consideration. To me, geocaching is almost always about the location, and very rarely about the container (to each their own, however.) I'm much more likely to get excited about some fantastic new area - scenic, park, hike, historical, whatever - than I am about some great camo or novelty container. It's the location. Given that mindset, I treasure the old caches - where did the forefathers of this game deem cacheworthy? I have yet to find a GC+2 or GC+3 cache hidden in a guardrail or lamp skirt. I think what the game would've been like back then - drive hours to the next cache, sometimes - and in some ways, that wasn't all bad.

 

I will say, if you find an old cache with the original lgbook, that's golden - much better logs back then!

 

Looks like this is the 13th-oldest surviving cache in Indiana. In my book that deserves a bit of extra consideration; the community stepping-in - unofficially, if necessary - for the absentee owner would be the best solution.

[+clumzyfly]

I found the current container and going by the descriptions given and the picture from a distance...it is in the original location, therefor anyone finding it now has the same experience as anyone that found the original, with the exception of cache size. The container is now a small(decon) and the listing says regular, so I will fix that soon. The log sheet was soggy and unusable, so I put a matchstick container inside the decon with a small temporary replacement log sheet. When I replace the cache, I will put a better log book in it. Through all of the contacting the finders of the original hide, I found someone who says they still email the CO occasionally. They sent an email to her and is going to try to get her back into geocaching, or at least see if they can let me do a proper adoption. Nearly everyone that I have contacted and ALL that have replied, have given great thanks to me for my willingness to keep one of the oldest caches in Indiana alive, and trying to do it the right way. I appreciate everyone's opinions here. Thank you for your replies.

[+roziecakes]

I think it's admirable that you've taken so much effort to help out this cache. Very nice.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I replaced the logbook in the oldest cache in Vance County, NC (the owner hasn't logged in since 2002).

If you believe that changing out a logbook ends the continuity of a cache, why would you do that? Shouldn't that one be archived as well, since the experience is not the same? Could it be that the "history" doesn't end when the logbook gets full? If that's true, then wouldn't it also be true that the "history" wouldn't necessarily end if the container is changed?

 

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The Vance county cache is still in the original location, in the original container, and the contents are in excellent condition. The original logbook is still there, but there is no blank space for new signatures. The cache gets along fine with no maintenance needed, as it is in an excellent container and a protected location.

 

As for the Georgia cache, the owner may not be actively caching and may not be logging in to the website. However, I suspect he is still maintaining the cache since he can see it out of his kitchen window.

 

The cache mentioned by the OP appears to have gone missing several times. However, i see in his later post that it is in the original location and he may even be able to contact the original owner to arrange a proper adoption. So I congratulate him on saving this bit of caching history.

[Clan Riffster]

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

They sure do look like apples to me? You complain that the "experience" has changed, and use that to justify the death of a cache. If I hunt for the Vance County cache, the experience would no longer be identical to that had by the FTF, since the logbook has been replaced. My point was not that the Vance County cache should be archived. My point was, just because a cache evolves a bit over the years, is no reason to send it to the gallow's pole.

 

However, I suspect he is still maintaining the cache since he can see it out of his kitchen window.

Judging by the logs, I suspect the cache owner is no longer around, as the only person doing any greeting is his sister. If that's the case, then the cache is not being maintained by the actual owner, but by a surrogate... Kinda like the cache in the opening post.

 

Double checking... Yup... Nothing but apples here... No oranges in sight...

 

The Clan Riffster Cache Archival Trifecta:

1 ) The cache is in serious need of help.

2 ) The owner is non-responsive to NMs.

3 ) The community does not unofficially adopt it.

 

The cache in the opening thread only meets one of the three.

There is no need to kill it.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I found someone who says they still email the CO occasionally. They sent an email to her and is going to try to get her back into geocaching, or at least see if they can let me do a proper adoption

 

Ah, good news, good luck with this.

[Andronicus]

cisupete

 

Member Since: Saturday, 23 June 2001

Last Visit: Friday, 13 August 2010

Linky

 

Who sais the CO is out of the game? Maybe in light of the last post by clumzyfly, he/she is just now trying to get back into it due to this thread?...

Edited August 14, 2010 by Andronicus

[+DanOCan]

I love seeing old caches kept alive.

 

Replaced containers, replaced logbooks? To me that doesn't make the cache, the location and the cache listing really are the cache continuity criteria in my book. I adopted several 2001 caches back when "forced" adoptions were allowed. I've replaced the containers and logs, but the overall cache experience is still the same. I'll do whatever I can to help keep historical caches going.

 

Sure, you could get it archived and get a new listing. The locals can all come back and get a new smiley, but to me it would have lost the "charm" it would have had with the original listing.

[+clumzyfly]

cisupete

 

Member Since: Saturday, 23 June 2001

Last Visit: Friday, 13 August 2010

Linky

 

Who sais the CO is out of the game? Maybe in light of the last post by clumzyfly, he/she is just now trying to get back into it due to this thread?...

 

The last log in was years ago. Maybe the email from the person I contacted got Cisupete to log back in. Could be a good thing. Maybe cisupete is coming back. Still not a validated member though.

[+Kabuthunk]

My great-grandfather's axe: I inherited it from my father, who inherited it from his father. My grandfather replaced the handle, and my father replaced the head, and now I still have my great-grandfather's axe.

And gramps would never recognize it.

Nor would Antiques Roadshow.

True, the antiques roadshow aside (since they're an outside party... so it would be like asking a hockey nut about needlepoint tools), the experience your gramps would recognize. And that's what you're preserving... the experience.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

I love seeing old caches kept alive.

 

Replaced containers, replaced logbooks? To me that doesn't make the cache, the location and the cache listing really are the cache continuity criteria in my book. I adopted several 2001 caches back when "forced" adoptions were allowed. I've replaced the containers and logs, but the overall cache experience is still the same. I'll do whatever I can to help keep historical caches going.

 

Sure, you could get it archived and get a new listing. The locals can all come back and get a new smiley, but to me it would have lost the "charm" it would have had with the original listing.

 

My great-grandfather's axe: I inherited it from my father, who inherited it from his father. My grandfather replaced the handle, and my father replaced the head, and now I still have my great-grandfather's axe.

And gramps would never recognize it.

Nor would Antiques Roadshow.

True, the antiques roadshow aside (since they're an outside party... so it would be like asking a hockey nut about needlepoint tools), the experience your gramps would recognize. And that's what you're preserving... the experience.

 

A couple of great arguments. I am not opposed to preserving a couple of great caches from the early days. However, not every old cache is a "classic" and worthy of immortality. Sometimes a cache has run its course and it's time to let it go.

 

And sorry, but the Antiques Roadshow people would know that it wasn't your great grandpas ax. Not an antique.

[Andronicus]

cisupete

 

Member Since: Saturday, 23 June 2001

Last Visit: Friday, 13 August 2010

Linky

 

Who sais the CO is out of the game? Maybe in light of the last post by clumzyfly, he/she is just now trying to get back into it due to this thread?...

 

The last log in was years ago. Maybe the email from the person I contacted got Cisupete to log back in. Could be a good thing. Maybe cisupete is coming back. Still not a validated member though.

Check out Cisupete's forum posts. There is one from 2006. Turns out her phone number is (or at least was) 911.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Andronicus

[+clumzyfly]

Oooo...good! I'll call her tomorrow an see if she's still at that number.