Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Jonathan Porter On Mastering The Minelab Gold Monster 1000!

Recommended Posts

Here it is! http://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/mastering-the-gold-monster-1000

"Savvy operators will be able to work the GM 1000 in surprisingly noisy ground once they come to terms with the methods I’ve described above. It takes practice but the effort is well worth it because these two Auto functions in combination with Zero threshold really does allow this detector to work in ground a VLF has no business working in - areas that I would consider to be MPS and MPF territory. In the quieter soils, Auto+ lifts the sensitivity to levels that surprised me, behaving like a much higher frequency machine Although not a ‘deep-punching’ machine like an SDC 2300, the GM 1000 still ‘holds its own’ on the shallow surface gold crumbs missed by the more powerful Minelab detectors."

IMG_1350.JPG

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, how do you think the GM1000 compares

to the Fisher gold bug 2?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made fairly specific comparisons to the Gold Bug 2 in my previous posts on the subject. I do not have a GMT to compare to but performance should be comparable. Again I hope my previous posts would serve to enlighten people on the subject. It just as always will depend more on the ground conditions and operator than anything. This is a 45 kHz single frequency metal detector and no rules of physics have been broken. Anyone that is considering the various alternatives and unsure at this point what they want to do should just sit back and wait for more reports from more varied sources to roll in. It's not like I have the complete picture by any means. 

I did some marathon posting the last few days. The stage now belongs to JP and I am hoping to hear more from him while I take a short break for a couple days.

First Impressions Thread - How Does The GM1000 Compare To Similar Models?

Sensitivity Thread Including Notes On Gold Bug 2

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This answered it for me:

" if you are an old Pro running a 71 kHz Gold Bug 2 with 3" x 6" concentric coil in low mineral ground, such that you have the sensitivity at max and are running in the low mineral setting, then expecting the 45 kHz GM1000 to match or exceed it on the tiniest of tiny bits is expecting too much. Conversely, if you are running a 14 kHz machine with a 14" x 13" DD coil and expecting the GM1000 to beat it on larger deeper gold you are expecting too much. If you are expecting the GM1000 to come close to replacing a SDC, GPX, or GPZ, you are expecting WAY too much! "

 

The 1000 does appear to have its advantages... read the reviews.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does help if people have questions that the questions are specific. When I am asked what I think of the 48 kHz GMT vs 45 kHz GM1000 my immediate thought is they are both metal detectors with similar features and performance. I can go find gold with either. I have a GM1000 so I don't necessarily need a GMT. If I had a GMT I would not necessarily need a GM1000.

Is the Gold Monster 1000 the new detector with new features that is so advanced it automatically obsoletes all detectors in its class? You no longer need look at or even think about any other VLF? I get the feeling that is what people would like to hear. Wouldn't it be nice if life were that easy! Sorry, no.

In my opinion it is nice to have a "big gun" like a GPZ or GPX as a primary unit. It can also be good in addition to have a mid frequency (13-20 kHz) detector to deal with trashy ground and/or a higher frequency (30-80 kHz) unit for tiny or specimen gold. For people who can't afford or do not detect enough to need the big gun the mid or high frequency detector can be the primary unit. Mid frequency detectors are better "all around" units and so better for those wanting a general purpose machine. Higher frequency detectors are generally dedicated prospecting models and so a better choice for those wanting a detector purely for prospecting.

Therefore in general for "prospecting only" a big gun or a high frequency unit can serve best either separately or together. Mid frequency offers more versatility (coins, relics, jewelry) for those who desire such things.

When having multiple detectors the key is they should all be as different as possible. If you already have a big gun a second machine should specifically do something it can't do well. Therefore the idea of getting a mid frequency or high frequency detector. In the same way, if you already have a 30 - 80 kHz machine getting another one adds no real capability per se. Better then to get a mid frequency or a big gun.

For people who have never had a high performance VLF looking at their very first one, I should hope the reviews point out the obvious advantages that the Gold Monster 1000 offers them, especially when operating in very difficult ground conditions.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me a properly set up Auto GB is a must on a VLF especially a high frequency VLF, no matter how quiet the ground is the ground will always vary as you move about. I tested the GM 1000 alongside the GBII as well as a Macro Racer, the GM and GBII were very quickly short listed to top spot (I've also used the White GMT in my test area so know how they behave). The big winners on the Monster for me were the silent threshold (surprisingly because I'm generally not a fan of this type of thing so approached the Monster with a sense of trepidation), Auto GB ( A must in my areas) and top of the tree the Auto+ Sensitivity control.

I would love to see the GBII brought into the modern world, its amazing to think its been out for so long without any major changes. Going back to the GBII took effort because I was constantly on the controls adjusting the GB and could only do away with hot rocks by using the Iron Grunt. Interchanges in the ground also gave me trouble whereas the Monster just happily tracked these obstacles out and a simple press off a button to disc mode handled the more positive hot rocks. Simply from an ease of use situation the Monster won the day, even though the GBII has the edge for sensitivity a lot of that advantage was lost due to ground signals constantly getting in the way.

Put it this way, if Steve and I were both using GBII's in my areas, he would thrash me in the gold take because he is a far more savvy VLF operator that I am (He truly is a wizz with the GBII, absolutely blew my mind what he could do with one, even in the nasty ground). If Steve had the GBII and I had the Monster I honestly feel I could hold my own and maybe even pip him at the post. Obviously this is in areas I work because I've never worked a VLF in the States before. 

BTW the areas I have been testing in are considered very mild by Australian standards, I used to use my Whites GoldMaster II in these locations with a concentric coil for a living 20 years ago, in some places I could even Max out the Gain.

JP

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering apart from size what are the trade offs or avantages for using the different size coils or there going to sense just the same With area covered to being able to fit in tighter places

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×