I have been on a mad hunt trying to find a copy of this book...starting to think that finding the book is going to be harder than actually solving the puzzle! Anyone know where I might be able to find a copy? Thanks for your help!

HI! And welcome to The Secret: A Treasure Hunt forum. Last week I finally found and purchased a used copy of the book.Finally! I did a Google search and found an on-line bookstore selling this copy. Keep searching daily/weekly. In the meantime, download and print the hi-Res images available here in the forums. Search keep word here is high resolution.It is a large zip file and worth every bit.

I found my copy for $2.13 on Amazon  :) ill also re-post some good info Mark Perry posted about this topic in a different thread. "THE SECRET A TREASURE HUNT ISBN 0-553-01408-0 There are many copies available on www.abebooks.com Just go to the search page and use Author: Sean Kelly Title: The Secret Watch the prices they range from $3.95 to over $50 Mark" Good luck. Just keep looking and you will find one for sure.  ;)

For anyone still looking...the cheapies are gone. Amazon prices now start at around $65.  ABE's lone copy is $75. Keep your eyes peeled for local bookstores, library sales, etc. It doesn't make much financial sense. Someone mentioned that Byron Priess has a digital book outlet, right? He needs to make this money himself with an authorized reprint of some sort. He could charge $20 for a digital version of just the relevant puzzle bits, cut out the secondary market altogether, and continue to recoup his investment. The only change would be an addendum to the rules to compensate for the digital nature.

Hi. Has anyone found a REAL high resolution copy of the ENTIRE book ? I am looking for it and can't find it. I don't mind paying for it a reasonable price. The site I've found have it but resolution is very poor for pictures... and the sites looking for help on the hints all post bad quality pictures. Why Even the supposed hi-res is definitely not hi-res... I can't believe in this day and age there is a real PDF version of it anywhere. Anyone ? Thanks CBY

I'm not sure why you would need high resolution scans of the text. Dan Amrich did host hi-rez scans of the full-page color paintings on his own website (and I will give you the link in private if I can find it). The only think you might be missing is the ink drawings on the black-and-white pages.

catherwood wrote:: I'm not sure why you would need high resolution scans of the text. Dan Amrich did host hi-rez scans of the full-page color paintings on his own website (and I will give you the link in private if I can find it). The only think you might be missing is the ink drawings on the black-and-white pages. Hi Catherwood, I'm not looking for Hi-Res of text. If I've led to you believe that - my bad. I'm looking for (2016) hi-res of the drawings. Here are a few of the reasons, - the scans are quite old dating from 2004. I've a ton of scanners and I can guarantee the scan quality of the back then scanners are nowhere near as they are today. - some tints, hue, tones, shifts etc. features we can use in Photoshop may help "isolate" or accentuate drawing features. (I played with this on the scans and the picture dynamic changes drastically highlighting things I could not see otherwise. - The moiré https://www.printoutlet.ca/moire.php patterns are awful on the scans - mind you this could be because of the poor printing quality. Anyone ? Thanks CBY

CBY wrote:: - the scans are quite old dating from 2004. ... - The moiré patterns are awful on the scans Maybe you're looking at the low-rez scans posted on hxxp://quest4treasure.co.uk/public_html ... /index.htm -- I know those are fuzzy. For example, compare the size of the Image01 file: 24.0 KB (24,576 bytes) 313 x 792 I cannot find an online link*, but this is the file size for Image01 from the hi-rez set: 3.25 MB (3,407,872 bytes) 1098 x 2439 I see wavy lines across the sky in the former; in the latter I see smooth blue sky and only the texture of the paper showing thru. Do you not have access to that version? *(edit): You'll find the link in this old thread viewtopic.php?f=32&t=938

Hi Cather, Yes I have access to these files. I'm not satisfied with the results - no offense to the person that scanned them. There is a face, on image 1, at I-3/4 and it's barely visible as soon as you zoom in. As I said before maybe the print quality was not good. I am still searching to find a 1982 book to scan - playing in Photoshop really allows to isolate stuff. But "garbage in garbage out". Thanks for your answers and trying to help. CBY (on the Montreal quest)

I've got decent scans in an online repository: hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image1.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image2.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image3.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image4.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image5.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image6.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image7.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image8.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image9.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image10.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image11.jpg hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image12.jpg

Those are great scans. I printed them out on glossy photo paper in 8 & a half by 11 size and they look wonderful.

forest_blight wrote:: I've got decent scans in an online repository: hxxp://kspot.org/trove/Image1.jpg ... Hi Forest, Thanks for the link, however they are the same as the "hi-res" from 2004-02-02. I am looking for a fresh copy of high-res files or a copy of the (original 1982) book to do them myself. But I won't pay 500$ for the book Thanks anyway! CBY

CBY wrote:: I am looking for a fresh copy of high-res files or a copy of the (original 1982) book to do them myself. But I won't pay 500$ for the book How much will you pay? I have a hardcover (not a softcover) of the 1982 first ed with jacket I scooped several years back that I might be willing to part with.

CBY - I agree the scans are old, but they are very faithful to the book. The printing quality in the original book was not the best. four21 - There was a hardcover?? I was aware that the 2015 reissue comes in soft and hardcover, but I thought the original was published only as a paperback. What a find!

...yeah, pics please...

Unknown: four21 - There was a hardcover?? I was aware that the 2015 reissue comes in soft and hardcover, but I thought the original was published only as a paperback. What a find! There's a number of things that people think that aren't exactly true... https://www.dropbox.com/s/7afkq7vgazyaibv/IMG_20161116_090628634_HDR.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3fso8o7bqe7isvh/IMG_20161116_090638158_HDR.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/my5vqwqj3py21xt/IMG_20161116_090719185_HDR.jpg?dl=0

WhiteRabbit wrote:: ...yeah, pics please... Hello Rabbit, You can find the pics here: hxxp://www.bunnyears.net/misc/secret.zip Unfortunately the quality is not sufficient for me. It might be good for you. Cheers CBY

Unknown: I was aware that the 2015 reissue comes in soft and hardcover I don't think that's true Forest. In my original post, I said the reprint was a hard copy but I clarified that statement when Catherwood thought I meant hard cover. The original thread can be currently found on Page 3 (The Secret-Back in Print). So, one less thing that someone thinks is true, but isn't.

four21 - That's really special. I'm jealous! Erpobdelliforme - bookfinder.com has many 2015 iBooks reissue hardcover copies available. Are all these sellers wrong?

forest_blight wrote:: CBY - I agree the scans are old, but they are very faithful to the book. The printing quality in the original book was not the best. I completely agree with this assessment. And if you are trying to zoom in further than what I could do with a magnifying glass and the book, you're going to see details that are not part of the puzzle (in my opion, which should go without saying) . The flaws you see on the scans (such as the pink dots in the sky on image 1) are in my book. If you're seeing moire interference patterns (which I don't) then it's an interaction with the texture of the paper, also in the book. I can't stop you from trying, but I think you're hoping you'll see something with a "CSI enhance" tool that everyone with the actual book has missed. The original paintings probably held even more detail, but they've been shrunk down to hand-held size and printed with flaws -- and yet the author thought they were still sufficient to make these solveable within a year. As for my misunderstanding, I never thought you wanted a hard cover, but you did insist you wanted the whole book, which I took to mean you wanted to scan the drawings or even the entire book. I consider the color plates to be paintings, not drawings. We don't have scans of the ink drawings on the text pages, nor the black-and-white photographs that go along with the text. I could understand someone wanting to have those online at some point, but a medium-rez scan would be sufficient for those as well -- the quality of the printing in my book is so low, they look like Xerox copies of Polaroids.

Unknown: Are all these sellers wrong? I have no idea. But given the quality of the copy that I bought (mediocre and cheap), my inclination is to say that they are using the terms "hard copy" and "hard cover" interchangeably. The only reason that I bought a copy was so that if the publisher decided to honor one of the original methods of submitting a solution, I had the page (and therefore the legal standing) to do so. For the record, I have never done so simply because I am not convinced that the current publisher knows aything about the location of the casques, and therefore is in no position to make good on Preiss' orginal conditions.

Erpobdelliforme wrote:: I have no idea. But given the quality of the copy that I bought (mediocre and cheap), my inclination is to say that they are using the terms "hard copy" and "hard cover" interchangeably. The only reason that I bought a copy was so that if the publisher decided to honor one of the original methods of submitting a solution, I had the page (and therefore the legal standing) to do so. For the record, I have never done so simply because I am not convinced that the current publisher knows aything about the location of the casques, and therefore is in no position to make good on Preiss' orginal conditions. Renovator & Community, What if... someone had found where a casque is. What would one do !!! Are we searching for nothing ? Thanks & regards, CBY

Unknown: What if... someone had found where a casque is. What would one do Finds an actual casque, or just finds a spot where they think one is buried? If it's the former, then my guess is that getting in touch with the publisher or Preiss' widow would be the thing to do. Both are on record that the jewels are still in play, so I assume that either they will make the exchange (jewel for key), or they will put the finder in touch with someone who can. Of course, that assumes that claiming the jewel is important to you. But if it's the latter, then the question is a little more complicated because until it comes out of the ground, we can't be 100% sure that the propossed location is correct. SInce I don't think anyone is willing (or able for that matter) to issue a jewel on the basis of a really good theory, traveling to dig it up yourself, or getting someone else to do it for you seems to be the best two options in this case. Of course, if you find one and just want to gloat, come here and spill. I guarantee that more than a few people would be interested in your story.

Renovator, Thanks for your answer. I don't have anything - maybe I do. LOL. Nothing physical. All in my head for now. We'll see in a couple of weeks I guess. Cheers CBY

Unknown: I don't have anything - maybe I do. LOL. Nothing physical. You're welcome. But since I truly believe that more that a few of these things are still exactly where Preiss put them 35 years ago, "nothing physical" is almost the same thing as "nothing" in my opinion. Being willing to travel and dig a hole is the ultimate test of any theory. A close second is convincing someone in the area to do it for you, but in both cases, dirt must be moved. There is no other way IMO. Good luck on the search.

catherwood wrote:: The original paintings probably held even more detail, but they've been shrunk down to hand-held size and printed with flaws -- and yet the author thought they were still sufficient to make these solveable within a year. As for my misunderstanding, I never thought you wanted a hard cover, but you did insist you wanted the whole book, which I took to mean you wanted to scan the drawings or even the entire book. I consider the color plates to be paintings, not drawings. We don't have scans of the ink drawings on the text pages, nor the black-and-white photographs that go along with the text. I could understand someone wanting to have those online at some point, but a medium-rez scan would be sufficient for those as well -- the quality of the printing in my book is so low, they look like Xerox copies of Polaroids. This is testing my memory, but I am pretty sure that all of the Images in the book are from large scale drawings, not paintings, if that makes a difference. In addition, some of the original drawings are larger than others, but they were all shrunk down to the same size. So, some details which John Jude Palencar put into the drawings, are probably not discernable to anyone. For example, there are so many little details in the Roanoke Image that there are probably clues which cannot be seen clearly. After Siskel and I found the Cleveland treasure, I spoke with JJP, and he offered to sell me the Cleveland drawing for about $2500. It was too much money for me, so I did not get it. Right now, JJP is not talking to anyone about the book. However, I bet that if you had the money and willingness to buy one of the drawings, you could probably convince JJP to let you look at all of them up close and personal - just my hunch. He won't answer questions about the book, but he may let you look at the drawings. It is also my understanding that some of them are lost. I don't remember how I know that, but I do.

Egbert wrote:: Again thanks Egbert, This is precisely why I'd like higher resolution pics. The seem hard to find so the quest is on CBY

Erpobdelliforme wrote:: You're welcome. But since I truly believe that more that a few of these things are still exactly where Preiss put them 35 years ago, "nothing physical" is almost the same thing as "nothing" in my opinion. Being willing to travel and dig a hole is the ultimate test of any theory. A close second is convincing someone in the area to do it for you, but in both cases, dirt must be moved. There is no other way IMO. Good luck on the search. Renovator, I hear you. I've been to the site. Site is closed to people. Extremely difficult to find the owner if not impossible. A theory so far, you are right. Cheers CBY

Unknown: Site is closed to people. Extremely difficult to find the owner if not impossible. Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. It's not like Chicago or Cleveland, or any of the other parks where we think the casques were buried, although FoY comes the closest. More than likely though, you have the wrong site.

Erpobdelliforme wrote:: Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. It's not like Chicago or Cleveland, or any of the other parks where we think the casques were buried, although FoY comes the closest. More than likely though, you have the wrong site. Renovator, Nothing lasts forever. Even gardens disappear... I don't recall reading that the quest is limited to parks or gardens. Thanks for the encouragement. CBY

Unknown: Thanks for the encouragement. So if I disagree, you would prefer that I keep my opinions to myself? Got it. Good luck with the search.

Unknown: However, I bet that if you had the money and willingness to buy one of the drawings, you could probably convince JJP to let you look at all of them up close and personal - just my hunch. My hunch is that he wouldn't. For the same reason that Preiss spoke in riddles. So as not to give any one person an advantage over everyone else still working on the puzzle. I do think JJP will talk to you if you unearth a casque though, and make you the same offer that he made to Egbert. Well, not exactly the same offer. My guess is that the price has gone up considerably.

So if I disagree, you would prefer that I keep my opinions to myself? Got it. Good luck with the search.[/quote] Renovator, Don't get me wrong. disagreeing is good. Closed-minded is not. I know of 4 gardens that were accessible to people in the 70s and 80s. two of them are now closed. One was a heritage site that no one in their right mind would have thought would ever close. I don't mind a disagreement at all. All I'm saying is that nothing lasts forever. CBY

Erpobdelliforme wrote:: My hunch is that he wouldn't. For the same reason that Preiss spoke in riddles. So as not to give any one person an advantage over everyone else still working on the puzzle. I do think JJP will talk to you if you unearth a casque though, and make you the same offer that he made to Egbert. Well, not exactly the same offer. My guess is that the price has gone up considerably. Agree. If I ever find a casque I would like to buy the painting to match. Wishful thinking - too much $$$. LOL CBY

Earlier this year I printed all the images on 8.5"x11" glossy photo paper and hung them on a wall at a local cafe to see what kind of attention they would get. It was a fun interactive experiment inviting people to write on the boards and post-it their ideas.

erexere wrote:: Earlier this year I printed all the images on 8.5"x11" glossy photo paper and hung them on a wall at a local cafe to see what kind of attention they would get. It was a fun interactive experiment inviting people to write on the boards and post-it their ideas. Very cool, Erexere! Great pooling idea.

CBY wrote:: I'm looking for (2016) hi-res of the drawings. Here are a few of the reasons, - the scans are quite old dating from 2004. I've a ton of scanners and I can guarantee the scan quality of the back then scanners are nowhere near as they are today. - some tints, hue, tones, shifts etc. features we can use in Photoshop may help "isolate" or accentuate drawing features. (I played with this on the scans and the picture dynamic changes drastically highlighting things I could not see otherwise. - The moiré https://www.printoutlet.ca/moire.php patterns are awful on the scans - mind you this could be because of the poor printing quality. What do you believe you are going to find?

decibalnyc wrote:: What do you believe you are going to find? decibalnyc, CBY: "I played with this on the scans and the picture dynamic changes drastically highlighting things I could not see otherwise" As many have already stated here and elsewhere, they seem to be smaller copies of larger paintings. The quality is quite poor and I see a ton of people speculating on the pictures they have like: "I thnk I see a 3...", "Is this a horse ?", "Maybe this is a sign...", etc. By playing in photoshop you can enhance many regions while making other poor and vice versa. Maybe we can find some of our own questions as to what we see. Maybe not. CBY

OK so you're just looking then, you don't have a theory that leads you to believe that a higher resolution is the key to finding the answer to a question you already have. Just wanted to see if you were pursuing a developed theory, or still figuring out the hunt. Carry on...

While I don't own a copy of the book itself (and I'm talking about the first edition, not the reprints done in recent years), I'm pretty familiar with the quality level of publications like this from the late 70's/early 80's, as I was getting into science fiction at the time, and loved science fiction and fantasy artwork. The original paintings are probably no larger than three feet wide by four feet tall, and JJP still has (or at least recently had) some of them, as they appear on his website. They would have been photographed, then prepared for four-color (CMYK) offset printing. The paper quality was probably good glossy paper but not great, and inks then were not as sophisticated as they are now. The first edition book wasn't all that big at very close to six inches by nine inches, probably to fit on bookstore shelves without being consigned to a more obscure shelf for larger-format books (this was often at the end of the shelves for Science Fiction & Fantasy, or off in the Art section with the coffee-table books). The clues had to be visible on 6" x 9" pages, with photo-reduced paintings printed in what passes today for a medium-quality color graphic novel/comic book. The two solved puzzles, Chicago and Cleveland, both relied on using the image as well as the verse to arrive at the solution. Since Preiss was by profession a book author/editor/packager, he would have had to be satisfied with the quality of various proofs before the print run for distribution, and then approved the final product for distribution. None of the information we have implies that he thought the images in the book were insufficient for figuring out the puzzles. I'm definitely in favor of better scans, but remember that the scan is limited by the source material and the capabilites of the scanner. I'd really love to see JJP's originals in person, but the chances of that are pretty small.

Kalessin wrote:: Since Preiss was by profession a book author/editor/packager, he would have had to be satisfied with the quality of various proofs before the print run for distribution, and then approved the final product for distribution. None of the information we have implies that he thought the images in the book were insufficient for figuring out the puzzles. I'm definitely in favor of better scans, but remember that the scan is limited by the source material and the capabilites of the scanner. I'd really love to see JJP's originals in person, but the chances of that are pretty small. Kalessin, Couldn't agree with you more. If you read my previous posts I mention moire patterns and older prints don't scan very well and don't transfer well into our 2016 age... I can't guarantee there is something else we are not seeing. All I am adding is that on trials I did with the last hires available (2004...) and tweaking parameters in Photoshop I am able to highlight "better" areas others may have overlooked. Anyone can do this if the have Photoshop - I use the Photographer plan 10-11$/month gives you Lightroom and Photoshop). The source is the key, as you said, hence the title of my subject title... I think we can do better scans with today's technology. Nice talking to you. CBY PS: I thought digital printing transition from traditional print at the beginning of the 90s - LOL. I won't teach you anything!

Since desktop publishing was in its infancy in the early 80s (expensive DTP was being developed, the big price drop came in 1984 with the Macintosh), the images were likely photographed, color-separated negatives developed and then blown up to the right size for the printing plates, emulsion painted on the plates, the negatives laid on (careful with those registration marks!), and developed on-plate with ultraviolet light. Totally analog! I don't know how much better they'd be than the 2004 scans, but very nice scans could be made with a good hi-res scanner (better than the kind that comes on top of a cheap inkjet printer), and a disassembled copy of the book (so the pages would lie flat).

I think that better very-high-resolution scans of the book images would be nice to have, give us prettier images to look at, and be an all-around good time. I lack access to a super-high-res scanner, and I don't have a copy of the book to take apart (for flat pages), so I haven't yet made a set. As far as I know, there is no real information about current ownership or condition of the original 12 paintings. John Jude Palencar (JJP) is still an active artist, and he has posted images of the paintings he did for the Secret on his website, and (if i recall correctly) he did say to a treasure seeker that he would sell one of the paintings to casque finder. I'm not sure of the copyright ownership of the images and text of the rest of the book. It's been republished, but that's probably with rights granted by permission rather than a transfer of copyright. Byron Preiss' estate, or an heir, probably holds rights to the book. JJP probably holds the rights to his paintings, and to any images of his paintings. The easiest way I can think of to prove ownership and copyright of images like this is to retain the original painting. Apparently, JJP doesn't like talking about the Secret much (doesn't want to be asked for clues), probably because it's unfair to the quest. Also, it's his early work from decades ago, it involved imagery that Preiss insisted on (as opposed to his own purely creative work), and the tragedy of Preiss' death in a car accident. He really doesn't want to hear from treasure seekers, though I suppose he might talk to someone who actually finds a casque. There are also some illustrations that aren't the 12 images on other pages of the book that may hold some clues or even unrelated secret messages or images. For example, right inside the front cover (the colophon page, if you want to get technical) is a black-and-white drawing by JJP with a fairy creature sitting on an large masonry fence post, with twisty vines along a fence that tempt and tease the eye into wanting to see letters and words. JJP liked hiding things, so there may be something there.

Here's an interesting scene. https://twitter.com/JamesRenner/status/ ... 6604276736

Hah, nice.

catherwood wrote:: Here's an interesting scene. https://twitter.com/JamesRenner/status/ ... 6604276736 Hmmm. Disturbing that one individual should be able to hold replicas (or originals !) of such quality - unfair ? He has been on the hunt for quite some time.

J.R. interviewed a lot of people and collected a lot of info from interviews with treasure hunters, JJP, Sandi, and relatives of BP. The real question to be asked... Is James Renner doing a documentary, or is he making a film about him and Charles attempting to dig up 9 or 10 casques on their own based on information he got from other people involved with making and working the hunt, and not from working the book himself?

decibalnyc wrote:: J.R. interviewed a lot of people and collected a lot of info from interviews with treasure hunters, JJP, Sandi, and relatives of BP. The real question to be asked... Is James Renner doing a documentary, or is he making a film about him and Charles attempting to dig up 9 or 10 casques on their own based on information he got from other people involved with making and working the hunt, and not from working the book himself? The truth is, both.

I have shared some peripheral things I've found, like finding sports team logos in five of the puzzles, the cable-car bell as the watch winder in the San Francisco image, etc. I'm entirely in favor of a documentary of BP and the people involved, and the Secret in general. But I'm not interested in having some guy hiring random people with shovels on Craigslist to go dig holes all over a proposed treasure ground (how many holes in Golden Gate Park before an eight-inch cube of casque is discovered?), and I'm not interested in giving any major clues to people hunting treasure under the cover of making a documentary. I wonder how many others feel the same way.

MrSeabass wrote:: No publicity is bad publicity. Seeing as only a handful of people even know this exists, and even fewer care about it, the ends justify the means. I'd rather have someone do some brute force holedigging than have this whole thing just die off and be forgotten to history. This isn't the Holy Grail we're talking about, just a fun puzzle. My apologies, I was editing while MrSeaBass was quoting me. Sorry my quoted text doesn't line up anymore.... The added bit was: I'm entirely in favor of a documentary of BP and the people involved, and the Secret in general. The problem with the random hole diggers is that they can do something like get an entire parks department and local police force on the 24/7 lookout for vandals in the parks with shovels, and they start regularly making arrests for property damage. In my location, this sort of thing can become permanent policy. So the means can entirely block the ends, as it were.

For anyone seeking a nice copy of the original 1982 paperback, the nonprofit I work for just put one up for auction on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Secret-1982-Treasure-Hunt-Expedition-Unknown-Paperback-Bantam-/222850092045

treetops wrote:: For anyone seeking a nice copy of the original 1982 paperback, the nonprofit I work for just put one up for auction on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Secret-1982-Treasure-Hunt-Expedition-Unknown-Paperback-Bantam-/222850092045

drunknerds wrote:: LOL, Well, we know it's not Josh Cornell bidding it up.

That is insane. I just bought a "in new condition" for $30 with shipping... Regards, Mac

Macfos wrote:: That is insane. I just bought a "in new condition" for $30 with shipping... Regards, Mac Are you sure it wasn't one of the reprints with a white background on the cover? I have one, the scans are not great.

Yeah, you are right. It is a reprint. Oh well... But I got $270 extra in my pocket... lol... an original would be cool. I get the price difference. Regards, Mac

I am going to use a black permanent marker and color mine in so when I go to spots and other hunters see me they will accept me and think I am the real deal... lol.. Regards, Mac

Exactly... just happy to have a copy. Regards, Mac

Too funny... I love reading comments... good look into the intelligence of everyday life... Regards, Mac