next »

Archaeology News
Articles
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
In the Media
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Video Channel

Treasure hunting with direct-arrival transmission imaging	1703
Stonehenge	1101
Archaeology assessor's kit	1071
The Industrial Role of Copper at Jamestown	1064
Projectile Points from Jamestown	1042
Origins of Oysters at James Fort	1041
Magnetism - The First Records	1041
Arlington Report	988

[Administration]

Shipwreck yields historic riches for Tampa, Florida firm
By Mitch Stacy - The Associated Press
Posted : Friday May 18, 2007 13:53:57 EDT

TAMPA, Fla. � Deep-sea explorers said Friday they have mined what could be the richest shipwreck treasure in history, bringing home 17 tons of colonial-era silver and gold coins from an undisclosed site in the Atlantic Ocean. Estimated value: $500 million.

A jet chartered by Tampa-based Odyssey Marine Exploration landed in the United States recently with hundreds of plastic containers brimming with coins raised from the ocean floor, Odyssey co-chairman Greg Stemm said. The more than 500,000 pieces are expected to fetch an average of $1,000 each from collectors and investors.

�For this colonial era, I think (the find) is unprecedented,� said rare coin expert Nick Bruyer, who examined a batch of coins from the wreck. �I don�t know of anything equal or comparable to it.�

Citing security concerns, the company declined to release any details about the ship or the wreck site Friday. Stemm said a formal announcement will come later, but court records indicate the coins might come from a 400-year-old ship found off England.

Because the shipwreck was found in a lane where many colonial-era vessels went down, there is still some uncertainty about its nationality, size and age, Stemm said, although evidence points to a specific known shipwreck. The site is beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country, he said.

�Rather than a shout of glee, it�s more being able to exhale for the first time in a long time,� Stemm said of the haul, by far the biggest in Odyssey�s 13-year history.

He wouldn�t say if the loot was taken from the same wreck site near the English Channel that Odyssey recently petitioned a federal court for permission to salvage.

In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England. A judge signed an order granting those rights last month.

In keeping with the secretive nature of the project dubbed �Black Swan,� Odyssey also isn�t talking yet about the types, denominations and country of origin of the coins.

Bruyer said he observed a wide range of varieties and dates of likely uncirculated currency in much better condition than artifacts yielded by most shipwrecks of a similar age.

The Black Swan coins � mostly silver pieces � likely will fetch several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said. Value is determined by rarity, condition and the story behind them.

Controlled release of the coins into the market along with their expected high value to collectors likely will keep prices at a premium, he said.

The richest ever shipwreck haul was yielded by the Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de Atocha, which sank in a hurricane off the Florida Keys in 1622. Treasure-hunting pioneer Mel Fisher found it in 1985, retrieving a reported $400 million in coins and other loot.

Odyssey likely will return to the same spot for more coins and artifacts.

�We have treated this site with kid gloves and the archaeological work done by our team out there is unsurpassed,� Odyssey CEO John Morris said. �We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site, which we believe will have immense historical significance.�

Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 04/09/2007

VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN ADMIRAL TV IN REM
Plaintiff, Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. ("Odyssey ), by its undersigned counsel hereby asserts the following Complaint in rem against the Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances, and cargo (hereinafter , "Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel " located within the center point coordinates: (to be provided to the Court under seal).

FACTS

5. Odyssey first located the site of the Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel in March 2007 using sophisticated sonar and magnetometer equipment. At the time of filing of this Complaint, Odyssey has not discovered evidence of the ship itself, only cargo and artifacts but Odyssey is currently in the process of surveying the wreck site and has begun an archaeological pre-disturbance survey taking video and photographs in order to create a photomosaic image of the site, using a surface-controlled remotely operated vehicle ROV"). The company has placed an array of 5 acoustic beacons on towers around the site to provide navigational information and precise positioning information.

6. The Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel rests on the sea floor at a depth of approximately 1100 meters, beyond the territorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation. The shipwreck' s position is located in an area referred to herein as the Salvage Area and is defined by the center point coordinates which, for purposes of security and confidentiality, shall be provided to the Court under seal. Upon infonnation and belief no other salvor is currently working on this site. Odyssey does not have any specific knowledge of any archaeological or salvage operations other than those by Odyssey which have been conducted on this site or in the general area, and to the best of Odyssey knowledge, no salvor has sought to protect an interest in the vessel through an arrest. Since Odyssey has located the wreck site, it has maintained actual, continuous, and exclusive possession or constructive occupancy of the site to the extent this is possible.

This is how it began, in Florida, USA.

2. The Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel is lying at a depth of approximately 1100 meters, beyond the territorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation approximately 100 miles west of the Straits of Gibraltar. Upon information and belief, no extant entity or person presently claims any ownership interest in the Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel. Evidence at the site indicates that efforts, if any, by any previous owner to salvage the shipwreck and/or its cargo have been long since abandoned. The value of the Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel cannot be estimated at this time.

> 1100 meters - 3,609 feet deep
> approximately 100 miles west of the Straits of Gibraltar
> beyond the territorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation
> Upon information and belief, no extant entity or person presently claims any ownership interest in the > Defendant Shipwrecked Vessel.

OMR FAQ

What can you tell us about the shipwreck code-named the "Black Swan"?

The site is in the Atlantic Ocean in an area in which a number of Colonial shipwrecks were lost. We are not certain of the nationality, size or age of the site at this point. We have some interesting evidence that tends to point to a specific shipwreck, but we do not intend to discuss this publicly until we have had a chance to review contemporary records and conduct extensive analysis of the artifacts and coins that have been recovered to date.

For site security and legal reasons, we are not prepared to give the location, depth or any other information about the site, or even which ship or ROV system was used in the recovery.

The recovery was in conformity with Salvage Law and the Law of the Sea Convention, beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country. We do not believe that the recovery is subject to sovereign immunity by any nation pursuant to the Law of the Sea Convention.

If we are able to confirm that some other entity has a legitimate legal claim to this shipwreck when - and if - the identity is confirmed, we intend to provide legal notice to any potential claimant. Even if another entity is able to prove that it has an ownership interest in the shipwreck and/or cargo (which we do not consider likely based on our evidence to date) and that they had not legally abandoned the shipwreck (also unlikely), Odyssey would apply for a salvage award from the Admiralty Court. In cases such as this, salvors are typically awarded approximately 90% of the recovery.

Note
18 April 2008
I have split the original topic into two, for the Merchant Royal and the Mercedes.
My apologies for the apparent dislocation.

[pgoldberg]

Thank you, Solomon, for your prompt and helpful response.  I hope that others on this terrific forum also chime in with comments.  For example, I would love to find out whether the Mercedes is registered with the Spanish Navy.

By the way, I would be very interested to hear why you think that Odyssey did not find the Merchant Royal and that the Sussex did not carry the tons of gold claimed.
 
Best regards,
Perry

[Solomon]

Perry,

The best source for starting a study of the Mercedes, that I know of, is O naufr�gio da fragata espanhola Nuestra Se�ora de las Mercedes, afundada pelos ingleses ao largo do Cabo de Sta. Maria, em 1804.

My sources on what was found off Land's End are confidential, though reliable.

History Hunters touched on the history of the Sussex last December. Our research provided what appears to me as a definitively negative answer to the question as to whether the Sussex carried the gold coin in iron-bound chests as claimed.

Though this is neither the appropriate time nor place for me to reveal all that I know on these subjects, such is not the case for Odyssey. I find it simply outrageous that a public company begs public funding whilst refusing to substantiate its supporting claims to history and archaeology. The burden of proof lies very firmly with Odyssey and in this regard it has failed spectacularly.

Do I think Odyssey could provide such proofs or evidences? No.

Best regards
Solomon

[pgoldberg]

Thank you very much for the link to the detailed Portuguese article about the Mercedes.  The article describes the Mercedes as being a "merchant ship," which would seem to suggest that it might not be a sovereign ship (or at least not a warship), and therefore might be subject to abandonment.  For example, the article has the following passage (which I translated to English using the free Babel Fish translation service) about the encounter that led to the destruction of the Mercedes by English warships: "It was evident that, despite the incomparable superiority of the English warships in face of the Spanish merchant ships, no officer would accept some time to surrender without resistance in a situation where a squadron of four ships threatened a squadron of four ships."

Thank you also for the link to the earlier post about the Sussex.  I wonder what the basis was for the French consul in Livorno to write that the Sussex had "a million piastres, of which 800,000 were for the Duke of Savoy."  I also wonder whether "piastres" could refer generically to "coins" rather than specifically to "silver pesos."  Would it have been customary in that time for the English to make payment in Spanish silver pesos?

Best regards,
Perry

[Solomon]

The author of the above-referenced work describes Nuestra Se�ora de las Mercedes as a Spanish frigate, which by definition is a naval warship. Her captain was a Flag Officer in the Spanish navy. This indicates to me that she was probably sovereign, though I am not in a position to offer a legal opinion.

Regarding the Livorno letter, which you refer to as a matter of fact: have you seen it? Where is it? Who has studied it? What is the full text and how is it regarded by expert opinion? On what basis should it be added to the claimed evidence for the Sussex?

Best regards
Solomon

[pgoldberg]

Thanks, Solomon.  With respect to the Livorno letter, I did not mean to suggest that I had any independent information.  I was simply referring to the History Hunters post to which you pointed me (https://historyhuntersinternational.org/index.php?page=216), which made reference to the Livorno letter (and suggested that unlike other evidence it could not be dismissed): "Of the claims to three pieces of evidence suggested by Odyssey Marine for treasure on board the Sussex, we can dismiss two. The third is the letter from the French consul in Livorno...."  Based on that post, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the existence of the letter was not disputed, and I was hoping you might have more information about it.

I appreciate you taking the time to bring me up to speed.

Best regards,
Perry

[Solomon]

Yes, you are quite right, Perry and thank you for reminding me, for I had forgotten that research moved on since 6 December. Until then, I had imagined, perhaps na�vely, a number of assumptions for the existence and contents of that letter: I had felt it was better to accept it at face value, at least for the sake of argument. This was wrong of me.

My position on this changed, in that I now question all aspects of claims associated with the letter.

In short, I do not accept that there is any reliable evidence to support any part of the claim for tons of gold coin in iron-bound chests being aboard the Sussex, bound for Savoy.

Kind regards
Solomon

[satdiver]

Much has been discussed regarding vessel sovereignty, with good reason. There are the other points of admiralty that should also be considered. Cargo ownership rights, rights of refusal, and adverse recovery are relevant in these regards.

[Jesus of Lubeck]

Charles III de Borb�n, Duke of Parma, King of Naples and Sicily, King of Spain (lived 1716-1788)

Hello, Solomon, Doc, Sat Diver, and Guests,

First let me welcome Mr. Goldburg, belatedly methinks, to HH. Your comments and questions are preceptive in the extreme and it is hoped that much insightful discussion may ensue as a result. Some very brief comments on the Mercedes:

1. As previously noted in the numerous accounts of the Nuestra Senora de Mercedes incident, England and Spain were not technically in a state of war with each other at the time of the battle of Cape Santa Maria.  Spain, therefore, was a neutral country with respect to its standing under international law at that time (5th October 1804).

2. Usually, in time of war, with respect to British Law of Admiralty, a vessel captured at sea became Droits of the Crown (Cruizers and Convoys Act of 1708).  The action off Cape Santa Maria, resulting as it did in the sinking of the N.S. de Mercedes and the capture of three other vessels in her squadron, did not meet the legal requirements rendering them Droits of the Crown; consequently, an Admiralty Prize Court ruled the captured vessels and cargo Droits of Admiralty.  The three surviving Spanish vessels were taken into British Royal Naval service and their cargo reverted to the British Admiralty.  After much legal maneuvering, the Admiralty rendered Ex Gratia awards to each of the four British frigate captains.


3. Were the N.S. de Mercedes sovereign vessels flagged under the Spanish Crown?  Yes. As Solomon noted, the primary sources in Spanish and English all refer to the vessels as frigates. The Spanish lexeme in the late 18th and on to the close of the age of sail, denoted vessels of a specific military class and function.  The one area where I have noted an exception to this usage occurs in documents from the early 19th century written by personnel at the Spanish naval base of San Blas.  American-built vessels sailing in Admiral Cochran's service were frequently described as pirate frigates. The use of the lexeme frigate in the European theatre of the Napoleonic Wars is very specific.

4. There is a certain amount of confusion caused by the use of the term treasure-fleet when speaking of Vice-Admiral Bustamante�s squadron.  Part of the problem relates to the exposure, particularly in the United States, to the concept of the Habsburg Spanish treasure fleet system, of which Mel Fisher�s N.S. de Atocha is among the more famous examples.  The Habsburg flota did include merchant vessels sailing in train with vessels flagged under Habsburg colors; however, the Bourbon system was significantly different in many respects, particularly by the onset of the revolution in France (1789).  By this period, the Bourbon system of transferring treasure from the Viceroyalties of Peru, New Spain, and New Granada, typically depended on the use of specialized military vessels for their characteristics of speed balanced with superior armament, i.e. the frigate. These Spanish naval squadrons were always under the command of a Spanish officer of flag rank. Typically, this was a sound transport option for valuable cargo related to the royal fisc; a squadron of frigates could only be successfully intercepted at certain choke-points, under favorable weather conditions, or upon entering or exiting port (as was the case with the Battle of Cape Santa Maria).

Thus, the composition of Vice-Admiral Bustamante�s squadron group is in keeping with established Bourbon reform practices modifying the West Indies Fleet system (so-called treasure fleet). Charles III began loosening the system in 1765, and in the 1780s Spain opened its colonies, ostensibly and very imperfectly, to free trade. In 1790, the Casa de Contrataci�n was abolished. The last regular treasure fleet sailed that year. Thereafter small groups of navy frigates would then be assigned to the transfer of bullion as required.

5.  N. S. de Mercedes is not recorded by any contemporary witness as having struck her colors, quite the contrary.  According to all primary sources the Mercedes was blown to smithereens, with the vessel still under colors of the House of Bourbon and the Royal Spanish Navy.

6. There is little question that the Mercedes wreck falls well within the domain of sovereign immunity and the doctrine of express abandonment is operative.  United States citizens, corporations, and other business entities owned and operated by United States citizens, are legally obligated to conform their activities so that they are in accordance with existing international treaties in force between the United States and the Kingdom of Spain; to act otherwise is to infringe upon the interests of the executive branch of the United States.  The Sea-Hunt cases have been introduced into the discussion.  To quote from the decision handed down by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, that specifically dealt with the status of the Spanish vessels La Galga and Juno, both frigates incidentally, like the Mercedes:


As sovereign vessels of Spain, LA GALGA and JUNO are covered
by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the
United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by
this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and
military gravesites. Under the terms of this treaty, Spanish vessels,
like those belonging to the United States, may only be abandoned by
express acts. Sea Hunt cannot show by clear and convincing evidence
that the Kingdom of Spain has expressly abandoned these ships in
either the 1763 Treaty or the 1819 Treaty of Amity, Settlement and
Limits, which ended the War of 1812. We therefore reverse the judg-
ment of the district court with regard to LA GALGA, and affirm the
judgment of the district court concerning JUNO and the denial of a salvage award.

(Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Vessels, Kingdom of Spain 4th Cir.)

Of course these issues are substantially more complex than this short divertimento presents and it well be necessary to expand on these comments further in later posts.  Particularly with respect to the application of contemporary Admiralty Law to the various wrecks under discussion.
 
In any event Mr. Goldberg, allow me to extend to you a very warm welcome to HH and thank you for your questions and insights to date.  There are still many areas of your initial post in this thread yet to cover.

Very Best Regards,

Lubby

[Diving Doc]

Well Lubby,

That certainly makes the matter at hand crystal.

In my mind there was never a doubt regards this

But thank you for the wonderful lesson in History.

Cheers,

Doc

[pgoldberg]

Lubby, thank you for your very gracious welcome, and for the fascinating information that you provided.  I greatly appreciate it.

Given that the surviving ships and their cargo became property of the British Admiralty, it seems that one might be able to argue that the Mercedes too became the property of the British Admiralty, even if it didn't strike its colors.  For example, did the British at the time salvage any of floating remains from the Mercedes?  Also, I would love to see a copy of the ruling of the Admiralty Prize Court that you mention.  Are you able to post a copy or point me to it?

Are there any treaties between Britian and Spain that might bear on the issue of who owns the Mercedes?

Has anyone looked to see how the Mercedes is described in the registry of the Spanish Navy?  In the Sea Hunt case, the registry of the Spanish Navy was viewed as an important source of evidence.

Is there any evidence that crew members on the surviving ships threw any of their cargo (such as sacks of coins) overboard to prevent the valuable cargo from coming into the possession of the British?  For example, are there records regarding the captured cargo that can be compared to ship manifests to see if there are any differences?

Best regards,
Perry

[Diving Doc]

You might find this interesting reading as well as his sources.

The entire article is very interesting to say the least and you can use the sources to verify what happened in the aftermath.

Doc

"Seizing the Gold of Spain: the Action off Cape Santa Maria"

By Stephen Millar

http://www.napoleon-series.org/

.......................................................

"Considered an act of piracy by Spain and �a necessity of war� by the United Kingdom , the Anglo-Spanish fight off Portugal �s Cape Santa Maria on 5 October 1804 was one of the most controversial naval engagements of the Napoleonic Wars. The action � which led to the loss of four Spanish frigates carrying a New World treasure � generated anti-British feelings in Spain ; the government of King Carlos IV finally declared war against the United Kingdom on 12 December.

The officer in command of the treasure-ships, Rear-admiral Jose de Bustamante y Guerra (born Ontaneda 1 April 1759 � died Madrid 10 March 1825), was not held completely accountable by King Carlos IV for the loss. As the seizure of the Spanish cargo took place in peacetime, Bustamante y Guerra had no reason to suspect the Royal Navy was planning to intercept his squadron.

Bustamante y Guerra was one of the most experienced officers in the Spanish Navy. From 1789 to 1794, he served as the captain of the Atrevida, one of the two ships of the Alejandro Malaspina scientific expedition.[2] Bustamante y Guerra was promoted to �Brigadier de la Real Armada� (Rear-admiral of the Royal Navy) in 1794 after he returned to Spain . [3]

In 1804, Bustamante y Guerra was himself replaced by Pascual Ruiz de Huidobro (1752-1813) and left Montevideo to return to Spain . He embarked on the frigate Medea � one of four treasure-ships leaving for Cadiz in August.

�Dollars and ingots of gold�: the Treasure Ships

....................
The warships had been assigned to transport and protect a valuable cargo of gold, silver and commercial commodities. Spanish government documents say 4,736,153 pesos of bullion was loaded aboard the four frigates: 1,269,669 pesos in gold and 2,158,850 pesos in silver for private individuals, along with 1,307,634 pesos in silver for the King�s government.[5]

The total value of the squadron�s cargo was, by 1804 standards, considerable. After seizing and selling the remaining three-quarters of the cargo, the British government received almost a million pounds (900,000 pounds sterling � or $4,095,000 at the 1804 exchange rate of $4.55 for one pound sterling):

�The cargoes of the three captured frigates consisted of Vidona [vicuna] wool, cascarilla, ratina, seal-skins, seal-oil, bars of tin, pigs of copper, dollars and ingots of gold, a netted very little short of a million sterling. Therefore, as the Mercedes was similarly freighted, the total value of what had been shipped on board the squadron probably amounted to nearly a third of a million more.�[6]

The 1804 sale generated about $72,150,000 (in 2006 dollars) for the British government.[7]

As the cargo was sold soon after it was seized, the value of the gold and silver aboard these frigates pales in comparison to modern estimates of unsalvaged treasure wrecks (the Spanish treasure-ship Nuestra Senora de Deliverance, for example, was lost on 1 November 1755 with a cargo estimated in 2003 at $3.2-billion US). However, a useful comparison might be made with the 34-gun Spanish frigate Juno, which left Veracruz, Mexico in 1750 with a cargo of 700,000 silver coins, estimated in 2003 to be worth 357-million pounds sterling (she sank in a storm off Virginia). [8]

The four frigates left Montevideo on 7 August 1804, under the command of Bustamante y Guerra. The original commander, Rear-admiral Thomas de Ugarte y Liano, was ill in Montevideo and unable to make the voyage."

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/...

"Sources"

Electronic sources:

http://www.todoababor.es/datos_docum/179...

http://www.todoababor.es/datos_docum/his...

http://armadasiglo18.free.fr/

http://www.armada15001900.net/

http://www.sailingwarships.com/

http://afehc-historia-centroamericana.or...

http://koti.mbnet.fi/felipe/Spain/spain....

http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhilli...

http://canmin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/co...

http://www.rootsweb.com/~kymagoff/county...

http://home.arcor.de/thomas_siebe/moore....

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Uruguay.ht...

http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhisto...

www.abc.se/~pa/publ/mercedes.pdf

http://web.genealogie.free.fr/Les_milita...

http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i030107/i0...

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

http://genealogy.northern-skies.net/gene...

Print Sources from http://www.google.books.com/:

a) James, William, The Naval History of Great Britain (Volume 3), London, 1859

b) Gardiner, Sir Robert, Memoir of Admiral Sir Graham Moore, London, 1844.

c) Urban, Sylvanius, �The Gentleman�s Magazine� (Volume 21), London 1844.

d) Urban, Sylvanius, �The Gentleman�s Magazine� (July, 1832), London, 1832.

e) The Annual Biography and Obituary (Vols. 17: 1833 and 21: 1837), London

f) Dodd, Charles R., The Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of Great Britain and Ireland , London 1846.
Notes:

[1] Gardiner, Sir Robert, The Memoir of Admiral Sir Graham Moore, p. 33.

[2] http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhisto...

[3] http://afehc-historia-centroamericana.or...

[4] http://koti.mbnet.fi/felipe/Spain/spain.... and http://www.todoababor.es/datos_docum/his... The Santa Clara was the second frigate to bear this name. The first, launched in 1773 at Cartagena, was wrecked on 27 July 1777 on English Bank in the Rio de La Plata.

[5] www.abc.se/~pa/publ/mercedes.pdf.

[6] James, William, The Naval History of Great Britain , p. 289.

[7] http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/...

[8] http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i030107/i0...

[9] Launched and commissioned in 1804, HMS Lively was the newest ship of Moore�s squadron.

[10] The Annual Biography and Obituary (1844), pp. 317-319.

[11] The Annual Biography and Obituary (1837), pp. 258-264.

[12] Urban, Slyvanius, �The Gentleman�s Magazine�, July 1832, p. 83-84.

[13] Dodd, Charles R., The Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of Great Britain and Ireland , p. 190.

[14] Gardiner, Sir Robert, The Memoir of Admiral Sir Graham Moore, p. 30.

[15] James, William, The Naval History of Great Britain , p. 287.

[16] Gardiner, Sir Robert, The Memoir of Admiral Sir Graham Moore, p. 31.

[17] James, William, The Naval History of Great Britain, p. 288 and http://genealogy.northern-skies.net/.

[18] Ibid, p. 288.

[19] Ibid, p. 288.

[20] http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhilli...

[21] http://canmin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/co...

[22] http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Uruguay.ht...

[23] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...



Placed on the Napoleon Series: December 2007

http://www.napoleon-series.org/

[satdiver]

Perry,

With all respect, the details of the sinking of the Mercedes are well documented.

Equally documented are the means and methods of storage of this sort of cargo. For your edification, this type of cargo would have replaced ballast. The ships crew would have been well versed in what it would mean to jettison ballast.

This type of cargo also would have been stored and secured in a method which would make it difficult to disseminate, foremost to deter theft amongst the crew during transport,  and toss overboard.

Would the crew have taken, or been able to take, the time to remove all of the protective measures, break open the barrels, and toss individual bags of coins overboard, all the while, under attack?

The basis for your questions and hypothesis are understood, please understand that this has been discussed ad nauseam...

[pgoldberg]

Thank you, Doc, for the great article and source info.  The following portion of the article is very interesting to me, because it references that most of the bullion on the Mercedes and the surviving ships was "for private individuals":

"The warships had been assigned to transport and protect a valuable cargo of gold, silver and commercial commodities.  Spanish government documents say 4,736,153 pesos of bullion was loaded aboard the four frigates: 1,269,669 pesos in gold and 2,158,850 pesos in silver for private individuals, along with 1,307,634 pesos in silver for the King�s government.[5]"

Thus, presumably Spain never owned the portion of the cargo that was "for private individuals."  Is anyone aware of any abandonment cases decided involving similar facts (i.e., the ship is owned by the sovereign, but the cargo is not)?

Perhaps one fair outcome would be for Odyssey and Spain to divide up the silver coins in proportion to the amounts that were for private individuals (2,158,850) and the amounts that were for Spain (1,307,634), with Odyssey keeping the former and Spain keeping the latter.

SatDiver, thank you for your explanation in response to my question about whether any of the crew on the surviving ships might have tossed valuable cargo overboard.

Best regards,
Perry

[Diving Doc]

Perry,

If you want to research the manifest of the Mercedes, and it does exist, you might find an answer to your question regarding the ownership and distribution of cargo.

However, it would be good to bear in mind that these were all soverign warships of the Kingdom of Spain

And entrusted with the treasures of the Kingdom of Spain and its citizens.

Remember also the ruling on the Juno and La Galga, it still stands.

I think your math is off by a bit if what was sold from the captured ships is a yardstick.

Look up the manifest of the Mercedes for your answer.

"The warships had been assigned to transport and protect a valuable cargo of gold, silver and commercial commodities. Spanish government documents say 4,736,153 pesos of bullion was loaded aboard the four frigates: 1,269,669 pesos in gold and 2,158,850 pesos in silver for private individuals, along with 1,307,634 pesos in silver for the King�s government.[5]

The total value of the squadron�s cargo was, by 1804 standards, considerable. After seizing and selling the remaining three-quarters of the cargo, the British government received almost a million pounds (900,000 pounds sterling � or $4,095,000 at the 1804 exchange rate of $4.55 for one pound sterling):

�The cargoes of the three captured frigates consisted of Vidona [vicuna] wool, cascarilla, ratina, seal-skins, seal-oil, bars of tin, pigs of copper, dollars and ingots of gold, a netted very little short of a million sterling. Therefore, as the Mercedes was similarly freighted, the total value of what had been shipped on board the squadron probably amounted to nearly a third of a million more.�