Jump to content

Garrett Ace Apex Review & Comparison Part 2


Recommended Posts

Garrett Ace Apex Review Part 2

Part 2 is the Apex depth test and comparison. Let me say right up front that my soil is 4-5 bars on the F75, so not mild ground. So, you’ll probably get different results if you have really hot ground or mild ground. The multi frequency feature of the Apex is what most interests me. I want to see how it compares against the Equinox (for target ID and depth) and other single frequency machines with similar sized coils. I’ve got a test garden in my yard of buried items, some in polluted holes. They are quarters buried at 2, 4, *6 & 8 inches. Dimes buried at 2, 4 & *6 inches. Nickels buried at 2, 4, 6 & 8 inches. Small pewter button (is a close representation of a $1 gold coin) buried at 2, 4 & 6 inches. *indicates polluted hole.

In the above test, I’m not only looking at whether or not a machine can detect the item but how accurate the ID is at each depth. The Apex was tested against the following metal detector and coil combinations: Minelab Equinox 800 (park 1) 6” coil (closest size for comparison), XP Deus 9” HF coil (deep mode), Fisher F19 5 x 10 coil, Nokta Makro Simplex (field mode) 5 x 10 coil & Makro Racer 2 (deep mode) 7 x 11 coil. I’ll try to make this short-Equinox with 6” coils sees all targets, and accurately ID’s the 2, 4 & 6 inch targets it will also accurately ID the 8” nickel. Nokta Makro simplex accurately ID’s the 2 inch targets, hits the 4” but ID is off, can also see the 6” targets except the dime and small pewter. Fisher F19 can accurately ID 2 & 4 inch targets. XP Deus can accurately ID the 2 & 4 inch targets can also ID the 6” quarter and nickel. Makro Racer 2 can accurately ID 2 & 4 inch targets. Garrett Apex can accurately ID all 2” targets but after that it can hit all targets but ID is for the most part all over the place. I only did a video on the Simplex and the Apex. Would just take way too long to video every detector. You can find the link to the video at the end of this post.

Also, in my yard I have an IHP buried at 3” with 2 nails on the surface 3” out from center. A 5” coil can get between the two nails but regardless of the metal detector/coil used I’ve yet to find one that can hit the IHP (even with a 5” coil). The nails always win, might be my mineralized dirt. But, in any case the Apex can’t hit it either.

The only other metal detector I wish I had access to is the Minelab Vanquish 540. But I know that unit well enough to know that performance in iron would be about the same as the Apex. However, the Vanquish I feel would have a clear depth advantage. Overall I feel like the Apex (as far as depth goes) fits nicely in the price range it falls in with other similar detectors. It looks good, feels good, has wireless headphones and a rechargeable battery. Performance would best suit it for open park areas and wet sand on the beach. In a trashy environment the Apex seriously lacks performance and I personally feel like I would be walking over too much in a ghost town or trashy relic site or any trashy site to justify using it.

Here’s the video If you want to see the Nokta Makro Simplex and Garrett Apex being compared on a separation and depth test.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just as a reference, Abenson's dirt and most of the places I hunt are similar. My Simplex mineralization graph is usually at least half full however. I have tested all of the detectors he mentioned except the Apex and my results are virtually identical to his findings in moderate to high mineralization where the Equinox and the Vanquish have a clear depth and ID accuracy advantage using Multi IQ.

Just for clarification, I believe the Simplex Jefferson Nickel number is roughly 24 so it accurately identified the 2" and 4" nickels.

Thank you for the excellent reports. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2020 at 1:38 PM, abenson said:

Part 2 is the Apex depth test and comparison.

Add my name to the list of those here saying "nice work!".  I had a bit of trouble trying to absorb your depth comparisons so I created a spreadsheet (shown below in .png format).  Hope you don't mind me showing it.  I'm sure it's not quite right and would be glad to fix it and repost with your instructions/corrections.

Update:  I've added abenson's corrections.

 

1357769579_Screenshotat2020-09-02082152.png.c92fe0cbefc914fddcacff699f589b06.png

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

Add my name to the list of those here saying "nice work!".  I had a bit of trouble trying to absorb your depth comparisons so I created a spreadsheet (shown below in .png format).  Hope you don't mind me showing it.  I'm sure it's not quite right and would be glad to fix it and repost with your instructions/corrections.

I appreciate the work you put into the graph. Sorry, I kind of rushed through my evaluation on some of the detectors because I was mostly concerned with comparing the Apex and the Simplex. Your red squares with no signal aren't exactly accurate (not that you didn't read my report right) but because I didn't give enough information. The Deus can see all the targets it's just that the ones in red gave a high 90's ID which could be anything so I would say marginal signal. Same goes for the Racer 2 red should be marginal signal. F19 marginal signal on the 6" nickel and quarter, the rest red as you have them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

Maybe I was expecting too much,, I was given the impression if anyone could do it Garrett with their resources could.  Maybe it was rushed out to try get some sales after a very slow sales period with the release of the Nox, Vanquish and Simplex and they put it as a Ace as the performance isn't really ready to hit the market yet and in a few years when they replace the AT series they may have it more refined. Then they'll no doubt be up against the second generation of Equinox and Vanquish and Noktas MF machine.

My disappointment is not so much in the tepid MF TID performance at depth as the fact that Garrett seems either unwilling or unable to put emphasis on recovery speed performance as an important detector attribute.  I suspect that when Garrett gets beyond their 1st generation of MF, they will have refined their signal processing to the point where they can start approaching where ML was 2 generations ago (now on their fourth generation of MF and 8 to 9 SMF machine designs under their belt).  But if Garrett continues to ignore recovery speed capability and tone customizations, they are really going to fall behind the curve versus their competition.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

The Equinox 1000 won't be cheap at this rate, what do they have to worry about?

Equinox.  They are still going to have to make it a compelling enough buy over Equinox if they plan to charge much more than Equinox.  One approach might be to introduce Equinox 1000 at $1000 or even at the 800 price point and then drop the Nox 600 prices into the entry level and Nox 800 into the mid-range.  It is tough to argue that any of these entry level detectors come close to even the 600 in terms of features  performance, and versatility.  ML could almost own the whole range from $100 to $1000 detectors with the Vanauish and Equinox lines including a $900 to $1000 "high end" Equinox-CTX hybrid variant that incorporates the best of both the Multi IQ and FBS2 worlds.  Gonna need some accesdory coils, though ML.  Get on it if you are not going to enable 3rd party coil manufacturers to play along.  Bad move.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, abenson said:

Your red squares with no signal aren't exactly accurate...

I've updated the table in my earlier post after repairing it for your detailed corrections.  You may want to delete to image in your reply to me above.  If there are any more changes I'll be happy to redo.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, phrunt said:

I was kinda hoping Garrett had done a good job of this and were coming out with a detector to show Minelab who's boss, to add some competition to the market.  I was hoping it was going to be better than the Vanquish and if it's version of multi was even close to being as good it'd destroy the Vanquish with it's lack of featues.  It's a big disappointment to me that its failed in what is important to me most, ID at depth.  It looks like a Porsche but has a VW Beatle motor in it.

I was rooting hard also for the Apex to show Minelab what is what. They really need to look good compared to the Vanquish 540, which does cost less. So person asks me “why should I get a Garrett Apex for $424 instead of a Vanquish 540 for $369?” What is my answer?

Minelab just adding ferrous volume to the Vanquish via an update addressed one area and shows the wisdom of the update facility in being able to address new competition.

Apex offers single frequency options. Is there anything any Apex single frequency option can do that a Vanquish can’t do without? That was the BIG thing Apex offered that Vanquish left out. But it only matters if they serve a function. It may be the function is to prove Minelab did just as well leaving them out.

More target id numbers than Vanquish? That only matters if the target id is more accurate.

OK, Apex has a ground balance. But if it is not performing as well as detectors that do not... so what?

”It looks like a Porsche but has a VW Beatle motor in it.”

That sums it up perfectly. Whereas Vanquish looks like a Beetle (Ace) but has the Porsche (Equinox) motor.

So, is there any reason at all to go from a Vanquish 540 to an Apex for more money? Right now it’s not looking too good.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...