I, too, am no great judge of poetry (The lot of it is highly subjective) however, I'll take seriously the need for serious feedback and give you some of my thoughts on the poem:
First of All, I like the imagery of the ocean. It seems to be a living monster, staring at the sky, with large powerful waves like arms that crash over the land. It's very good. I also enjoy the fact that it's night-time. This seems to enhance the element of secrecy and mystery surounding the ocean, which is hiding away some treasure.
You retain the air of mystery by not revealing what the treasure is at the end, and I appreciate that a lot. The poem instead seems to focus on the wonders in the act of discovery itself. Peering into the mysterious is the magic of the poem.
However, there are a few elements that might need addressing.
In the first line, I'm not sure at all what you mean by "Visions glare" Who's visions? Are they the Ocean's? The Narrator's? The Owners of the wooley socks?
Visions of What? And why do they glare?
The word vision could aslo be interpreted to be refering to someone's sight. If so, is it the Ocean's and is it glaring?
The words are good diction choices because of the connotations they lend to the scene, but they may be more powerful if they are clarified in some manner.
As with all forms of writing, authors somethimes do things that they aren't aware of, though others will see and appreciate it.
I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but the first two lines deal with the sense of sight: "visions" "glare" "staring" "sight"
The second two lines deal with sound, but particularly bass-sounds or sounds of powerful vibrations: "thunderous tones" "shakes" "shake our very bones"
But after the first stanza the pattern falls apart. I think it'd be nice if it was implemented throughout, however I don't know if you intended to do this, so it might not be nessesary.
I'm not sure what the "Obscurities" are in the second line, but I associate them with the mysteries of the Ocean, and particularly the treasure at the end. If I disagreeumption of the obscurities is wrong, you might want to further clarify it. (I know that poetry is a generally vague realm of writing, but some clarity is helpful).
In the last line of the first stanza you use the word "shake" (or variations of it) twice. Consider a different word for one of them.
Ditto with Caress in lines 3 and 5.
In line 6 - "With it our eyes beheld" By the context of the poem, it seems that the "it" you are refering to is the Power of the waves the line previous. If this is a wrong assumption something might be done to clarify the word "it".
However, I believe that you might really mean the Power of the waves. In other words, the waves pulled back the sand covering the treasure, which is what you mean by "overtook the land" the line previous. If this is the case, then you need to show more directly that the power of the waves revealed the item. As much as I like the phrase "overtook the land" it might be more effective to say that it "tore away the land" or something to that effect.
I'm not a big fan of the word "something" in line six.
"the shifitng rocks,
That soaked"
As you can see in this selection of lines 7 and 8, the way it is phrased seems to say that the rocks are soaking the socks.
"Step by step we took a stroll towards the prize below,
For what was inside this very thing we did not really know."
Strolling seems to say that the people aren't that interested. It takes away from the energy of discovery that I find in line 8 when they seem so eager that they don't care that their socks are getting wet.
I don't like the phrase "very thing". the way you use the word "very" is a strongly poetic or elegant manner, but then you use the word "thing" which is vague and common. The pair together sticks out like a sore thumb.
Also, use of the word "For" is unclear and it seems unnesesary. It sounds more poetic, but I think it doesn't serve the purpose that the word should indicate.
"All was held except our eyes as we stared in disbelief,
When what inside had shocked us all: it was something we could not conceive. "
I'm not sure what "all" is, or how it is being held. Isn't it typically the eyes that are held? and yet they are indicated as the only thing that isn't held.
I also think you could drop the word "when" in the last line, as it doesn't serve any purpose other than to make the last line obvious. It might as well read like this: "When we were shocked; we were shocked." Without the "When" the word "conceive" is liberated a bit.
Overall I enjoyed it a lot. The air of mystery, night-time, seashore locale, the element of discovery - I loved those parts.
I think that it needs some work, but that it could be truly fantastic with the wrinkles ironed out.
By the way, if you manage to re-write your poetry, you'll be doing a lot better than me. I've known the weaknesses of some of my own past poetry yet I can't bear to go back and fix it.
Poetry is hard.