Middleton has listed most of the iconic ranches of the rolling plains in the last few years. Swenson, Waggoner, Matador, now the sixes. Bummer.

$341 million, surely Barnes will at least make an offer. Or at least his latest sock will tell us he did.

Kinda sad to see it sold.

I believe it was the Waggoner ranch that had a wagon wheel ceiling light suspended above the table where the ranch hands took their meals. When WW2 started and the hands would go off to war, they'd hang their spurs on the wagon wheel and come back and get them when they returned home. There were still several sets of spurs hanging there from men who never made it back. I remember reading about it somewhere but it's been years ago.

Don't worry, some billionaire chinaman will purchase it.

marcel ledbetter said:

---

I believe it was the Waggoner ranch that had a wagon wheel ceiling light suspended above the table where the ranch hands took their meals. When WW2 started and the hands would go off to war, they'd hang their spurs on the wagon wheel and come back and get them when they returned home. There were still several sets of spurs hanging there from men who never made it back. I remember reading about it somewhere but it's been years ago.

---

Wow. I'd never heard that. That's touching as hell.

Silky Johnston said:

---

Don't worry, some billionaire chinaman will purchase it.

---

Ain't that the truth.

Ranches don't pay for themselves. Unfortunately land of that size just doesn't work anymore unless you can do something else with it. This is exactly the kind of thing I wish could be purchased with tax dollars and turned into pubic land. I don't want the family to sell it but if they've decided that's what they have to do, then it's going to be cut up into developments anyway.

Quote:

---

if they've decided that's what they have to do, then it's going to be cut up into developments anyway.

---

Unlikely. These properties are pretty isolated, dry, and not much use, except for cattle. Some small parts will be developed, but the vast majority will probably still be ranchland in 100 years.

Silky Johnston said:

---

Don't worry, some billionaire chinaman will purchase it.

---

Asian American, please.

Silky Johnston said:

---

Don't worry, some billionaire chinaman will purchase it.

---

I remember a few decades ago when the Japanese economy was booming, and Japanese were buying real estate. Then their economy went bust and they went away.

Perhaps the same thing will happen with the Chinese.

I could say more, but this is "Outdoors" not "Politics".

Capt. Augustus McCrae said:

---

Asian American, please.

---

Who said it would be an American?

Sad to see this.

I'm not doubting you. I just wanted to quote the Big Lebowski.

Silky Johnston said:

---

Don't worry, some billionaire chinaman will purchase it.

---

I could be wrong but I think the last number of large ones for sale definitely didn't go to foreign owners. I know Stan Kroenke bought the Waggoner.

I've seen that song play out.

I've also seen third gens doing great, also seen fourth gens that pick up the ball that 3rd gen dropped.

It's true often enough to agree with the song. But it ain't true a lot, as well.

Visited there with Dr. Hesby in '96 or '97

BrazosDog02 said:

---

I don't want the family to sell it but if they've decided that's what they have to do, then it's going to be cut up into developments anyway.

---

You obviously have not been to Guthrie.

SWC Ag said:

---

normaleagle05 said:

---

Quote:

---

...
The flagship Four Sixes Ranch in King County boasts 142,372 acres,
....

---

I wish the continuing education folks would explain precision to brokers.

---

This was a story for ABC 7 in Amarillo. I'm not sure I follow your heartburn over precision/significant digits here.

I'm genuinely curious.

---

I assume that number comes to ABC from the broker who probably got it by adding up the CAD's numbers. Who knows where those came from.

As a surveyor I typically come to ranch/recreational land sales after the contract has been inked. Everyone seems to expect that 640 acre survey from 1849 to actually be 640 acres and they've put a lot of effort into their negotiations based on those kind of assumptions. Those are terrible assumptions and I don't see many sales/brokerage agents educating their clients to that fact before I show up and completely alter everybody's picture of reality.

I find a lot of properties over a couple acres to be ~1-3% different than the call even for a psuedo-recent survey. When you start talking about original surveys out of the sovereign and stacking them together I'd expect 3-6%. Start throwing in serious title defects that might be found by the first survey since 18** and I'd be unsurprised to see a double digit percentage difference in area. Maybe twice.

None of the above may be the case here. I'm not involved with the sale. But I don't believe that acreage.

Quote:

---

I assume that number comes to ABC from the broker who probably got it by adding up the CAD's numbers. Who knows where those came from.

As a surveyor I typically come to ranch/recreational land sales after the contract has been inked. Everyone seems to expect that 640 acre survey from 1849 to actually be 640 acres and they've put a lot of effort into their negotiations based on those kind of assumptions. Those are terrible assumptions and I don't see many sales/brokerage agents educating their clients to that fact before I show up and completely alter everybody's picture of reality.

I find a lot of properties over a couple acres to be ~1-3% different than the call even for a psuedo-recent survey. When you start talking about original surveys out of the sovereign and stacking them together I'd expect 3-6%. Start throwing in serious title defects that might be found by the first survey since 18** and I'd be unsurprised to see a double digit percentage difference in area. Maybe twice.

---

Very interesting perspective. My first wife's family owns a rather large piece of land in the Hill Country. They surveyed it after her grandfather passed. It had not been surveyed since the late 1800's and the unit of measure was the Vara (I hope I said that correctly). The difference in what they thought they had, and what they actually had, was rather significant. As I recall, it was about an 8-10% error.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Capt. Augustus McCrae said:

---

Asian American, please.

---

Who said it would be an American?

---

John Goodman

normaleagle05 said:

---

SWC Ag said:

---

normaleagle05 said:

---

Quote:

---

...
The flagship Four Sixes Ranch in King County boasts 142,372 acres,
....

---

I wish the continuing education folks would explain precision to brokers.

---

This was a story for ABC 7 in Amarillo. I'm not sure I follow your heartburn over precision/significant digits here.

I'm genuinely curious.

---

I assume that number comes to ABC from the broker who probably got it by adding up the CAD's numbers. Who knows where those came from.

As a surveyor I typically come to ranch/recreational land sales after the contract has been inked. Everyone seems to expect that 640 acre survey from 1849 to actually be 640 acres and they've put a lot of effort into their negotiations based on those kind of assumptions. Those are terrible assumptions and I don't see many sales/brokerage agents educating their clients to that fact before I show up and completely alter everybody's picture of reality.

I find a lot of properties over a couple acres to be ~1-3% different than the call even for a psuedo-recent survey. When you start talking about original surveys out of the sovereign and stacking them together I'd expect 3-6%. Start throwing in serious title defects that might be found by the first survey since 18** and I'd be unsurprised to see a double digit percentage difference in area. Maybe twice.

None of the above may be the case here. I'm not involved with the sale. But I don't believe that acreage.

---

The acreage was provided by the landowner and verified, as accurately as possible, my mapping the property boundaries. Is the acreage stated survey accurate, no. It never is. That is why, in the marketing materials, you will see the acreage followed by +/- or the acreage followed by more or less. The acreage is close, trust me.

I'd buy it, but all those gd windmills in my view.

My family had the good fortune of owning the 246 for about 5 years recently. From my experience, with a significantly smaller piece of land, I don't know how you could make a place that size profitable and sustainable.