Items In The Chest

[OH!!]

TTOTC Book Excerpt:
One of the prizes in my collection, a Tairona and Sinu Indian
necklace from Columbia, is also part of the treasure. It contains
thirty-nine animal fetishes carved from quartz crystal, carnelian,
jadeite and other exotic stones. But special to the necklace are two
cast gold objects - one, a jaguar claw and the other, a frog with
bulbous eyes and legs cocked as if ready to spring. I held the 2,000-
year-old piece of jewelry one last time and could almost feel its
ancient power, its supremacy, before I finally lowered it into the
chest and closed the lid.

Forrest stated that he hid the chest and then wrote the book. What gets me is that why would you write this into the book not knowing this piece was in the chest?
It is the last thing he writes about placing things into the chest. On two other occasions he also writes about the last things he puts in the chest and these are also different objects, along with a statement of "She will like the top piece in the chest. The frog piece was not in the chest according to Jack. In my opinion, you would know what you placed in the chest after the fact because you would be in your safe/storage area to know this item was not there, therefore in the chest.
Even years later while rummaging thru your treasures, you would notice it in your possession and make a point to correct yourself, yet this was never done.
Forrest goes into great detail about this object with the frog, yet to me it is embellishment. What say you?

This also goes for the emerald ring, yet it was not in the chest either. You know he inventoried his treasures as we have many scrapbooks, vignettes, etc. about them.

Now with all of that said, isn't this the necklace that is suppose to have the gold frog with bulbous eyes and Jaguar claw attached to it?
Didn't Jack state the frog was not on the necklace. It was not in the chest?

[Broken arrow]

There was some things added oh

[Sal O'mander]

The fetish necklace looks too perfect to be that old.... I have a very similar one that I always assumed to be a reproduction..... It's a fairly common "tourist" piece..
The missing ring is what bothers me the most.. it must have been a very special artifact to Forrest having been found in San Lazaro and a very unique item....
How could it just go missing??
Then there is the question of that other missing item... That secret special thing that wouldn't be known until the chest was found! What was it? According to Kpro, Jack doesn't know .... How could he not be aware of something that Forrest said the finder would be so surprised and overjoyed to find in the box?? And please don't tell me it was that stick......

[OH!!]

There was some things added oh

We all know the chest inventory was not done at Forrest house, as that is where Forrest rummaged thru his vault and found the missing frog and gave it to Jack. But there are two gold objects on the necklace and one is the frog. The bulbous eyes give it away.

[Rose Livingstone]

I thought there were originally two gold frogs not including the one on the necklace or the box clasp one. You can see two in earlier photos.

[FenndersKeepers]

There were two frogs. One was on the necklace and one was a gold stand alone frog. Jack said that Forrest had the frog necklace in his vault and had forgotten to put it in the chest. Jack said Forres have him the necklace when he met with him.

[Sal O'mander]

I thought there were originally two gold frogs not including the one on the necklace or the box clasp one. You can see two in earlier photos.

There were supposed to be two.... It's very odd that the smaller one never made it into the box.... But then, maybe that was Forrest's way of getting the finder to contact him? Forcing them to come to him to retrieve the missing piece?

[OH!!]

I thought there were originally two gold frogs not including the one on the necklace or the box clasp one. You can see two in earlier photos.

I only know of the one on the necklace as you see that in his old chest photo, along with the bigger frog.

[Star Shadow]

They must have been well hidden in the picture, power objects usually are. Besides, isn't that what a trickster would do

[OH!!]

I only know of the one on the necklace as you see that in his old chest photo, along with the bigger frog.

Here is the statement.

[Trovesearcher1]

TTOTC Book Excerpt:
One of the prizes in my collection, a Tairona and Sinu Indian
necklace from Columbia, is also part of the treasure. It contains
thirty-nine animal fetishes carved from quartz crystal, carnelian,
jadeite and other exotic stones. But special to the necklace are two
cast gold objects - one, a jaguar claw and the other, a frog with
bulbous eyes and legs cocked as if ready to spring. I held the 2,000-
year-old piece of jewelry one last time and could almost feel its
ancient power, its supremacy, before I finally lowered it into the
chest and closed the lid.

Forrest stated that he hid the chest and then wrote the book. What gets me is that why would you write this into the book not knowing this piece was in the chest?
It is the last thing he writes about placing things into the chest. On two other occasions he also writes about the last things he puts in the chest and these are also different objects, along with a statement of "She will like the top piece in the chest. The frog piece was not in the chest according to Jack. In my opinion, you would know what you placed in the chest after the fact because you would be in your safe/storage area to know this item was not there, therefore in the chest.
Even years later while rummaging thru your treasures, you would notice it in your possession and make a point to correct yourself, yet this was never done.
Forrest goes into great detail about this object with the frog, yet to me it is embellishment. What say you?

This also goes for the emerald ring, yet it was not in the chest either. It was years later that Forrest mentioned the emerald ring being in the chest. You know he inventoried his treasures as we have many scrapbooks, vignettes, etc. about them.

Now with all of that said, isn't this the necklace that is suppose to have the gold frog with bulbous eyes and Jaguar claw attached to it?
Didn't Jack state it was not in the chest?

In my understanding of the missing frog, there were two solid gold frogs in the chest. One larger than the other. One of these frogs was the reported missing frog and also the emerald ring.

This tells me someone else found the treasure and removed these two items as a talisman. Not Jack. I do recall Forrest did write an SB in reference to leaving something in place.

What SB? Not sure, but it is there.

[Rose Livingstone]

There are these two which you can see in the box with clocks photo, plus the one on the fetish necklace which is either under stuff or not in the photo.

[Sal O'mander]

Here's another thing..... Any of the indigenous pieces in the chest could have easily been forged..... Without any sort of provenance they would be worth little more than scrap value..... Did Forrest ever provide any indication of provenance for any of those pieces? Surely, as an art and antiquities dealer he would have known this...... " I bought it at a gun show" does not qualify as provenance.....
In order to even sell authentic indigenous antiquities one has establish provenance.... Otherwise, it is just assumed to have been acquired illegally!

[OH!!]

There are these two which you can see in the box with clocks photo, plus the one on the fetish necklace which is either under stuff or not in the photo.

So, I suppose it is possible that Jack is speaking of the frog on a turquoise necklace and not the one on the fetish necklace. I never knew this one was in the chest. Good to know. The one we never see a clear picture of is on the fetish necklace then.
The question here is, why did Forrest say this turquoise necklace with the frog was in the chest years after the chest was hid? You know he knew it wasn't in the chest, but in his vault?

[Trovesearcher1]

Because they (the frog and the ring) are still in the real chest . . . which is still out there waiting for a real finder.

You really believe this Stickman?