Jump to content

Fisher Has A Lot Of Models Marked Discontinued On Their Site And Teknetics Has 3 Models


Recommended Posts

Β  Β Debt reorganization is probably a more succinct idea! Especially if a company wants to trim excess products that are sinking! And maybe taking the few competing, or upcoming products forward with a new "slim and trim" business model! I hope it works out, whatever their plans are!!Β 

Β  Β I'mΒ no business expert by education, or any other means, but waiting as long as White's did is a "no go"!! Though, I very much wish they had made it through somehow!! But we all know the reality of "wishing in one hand, and spitting in the other"....πŸ˜”πŸ‘πŸ‘

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

You put those sentences in quotes.Β  I'm curious as to whom specifically you are quoting.

There are a lot more like them. Some come from forums, some from interviews, some from social media, and some from private conversations. I would never break trust to say who has said what without permission. There are times when I’m honestly not sure who was representing or running their pages either. There’s also been conflicting sentiments from marketing who have indicated that we will see some features we’ve asked for in public on Facebook and have been saying so for a long time. We haven’t so far though, and it makes you wonder which voices are winning. We know what voices won out at Whites.Β 
Β 

To be clear generally, I don’t know if I blame engineers. I certainly don’t blame all. Many times they have to be β€œshot” before they call a project good. I also suspect there are probably different opinions and visions there too about what a modern metal detector should look like. Sometimes they are even right about having to contend with features that are pure gimmickry or a novelty but sell nonetheless. We all have different opinions about that as well. For example, I consider wireless from pod to coil a gimmick that gives you more to charge, drives up coil prices, is hard to effectively waterproof, and does nothing for performance. But I can’t argue that it hasn’t helped sell a boat load of detectors and is a big success. I couldn’t argue if it were emulated. Being on top technologically sells up and down the lineup. That’s where I want First Texas. Ultimately the buck stops at the top of any company.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ☠ Cipher said:

There are a lot more like them. Some come from forums, some from interviews, some from social media, and some from private conversations. I would never break trust to say who has said what without permission.

If someone says something in a (recorded, made public) interview or posts something on social media, it's already out in the open -- no permission needed.Β  I understand why something said in a private conversation would require permission, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mh9162013 said:

Wouldn't another way to make a significant advancement in metal detecting technology, without creating a new type of technology (a la MIQ, FBS, BBS, etc.) is simply speed up the processors in metal detectors?

I’m not sure on this. My understanding has been that the processing power has already been there for quite some time, and that often what these machines have for processors is even overkill. If that’s the case it would seem to be more of an issue as to how it was coded or the kind of algorithms used at the time. My memory could very well have this wrong, but that was what I took away from past discussions. Phrunt seems right too that most of the advances in processing lately have been in running more efficiently and cooler rather than achieving higher performance. My mid 2012 MacBook Pro competes nicely with anything made today. Under the hood you’ll just find that newer MacBooks run cooler and quieter with less hardware necessary to keep it cooler.Β 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any detection technology has a VLF 1F... or a Multi-F, it has a great chance and possibilities to improve it ... ,, but it is necessary to approach fundamental changes in thinking ... how a powerful metal detector should work ..

As for Fisher ... I believe he's working on something new ... and the new 12 "coil * Fisher's coil indicates that he's really trying to improve the detection capabilities of his detectors ....

Β  Since Fisher works at Engineering Time ... Carl Moreland also works .... there is great hope that Fisher ... will be able to deliver a new detection product that will exceed the features of the F75 and G2 models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ☠ Cipher said:

If that’s the case it would seem to be more of an issue as to how it was coded or the kind of algorithms used at the time.

But if that's the case, a much faster processor can compensate for slow code or inefficient algorithms, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this doesn’t pertain to the original topic but this subject that was touched upon after White’s closed their doors; Is First Texas next?

β€œMost people who say they want waterproof will never set foot in water.” β€œBuilt in updates lend to hacking.” β€œWireless headphones are not the best performance option.” On and on. The idea that many of our asks are unnecessary or extraneous is pervasive.”

I may never set foot in the water but like the ability to do so without having to purchase a separate machine, especially a Gold Prospecting model I may accidentally drop in the drink (which I have done!).

These β€œunnecessary or extraneous” features are becoming Industry Standards which American Companies seem to be having a hard time incorporating into their offerings.Β  For me, Wireless Headphones are a God send.Β  As far as software updates are concerned, I remember back in the day when White’s made an improvement on one of their machines, you could send it in and they’d do the upgrade for a small nominal fee.Β  Minelab on the other hand, would make you buy the newer model of Explorer rather than modify your old one to match it, if you wanted the latest and greatest.

β€œEmployees move on, so in the case of some detectors like the older Fishers are the people who wrote the code even there? are they capable of modifying the code to modernize the detector?Β  Maybe they didn't keep up with the times themselves.”

Last time I checked; Dave Johnson who was responsible for the Gold Bug, GB2 and CZ series, is their Chief design Engineer.Β  Am I wrong?Β  Did he leave?

β€œI don't think doing this is beyond them but they just took the lazy way out once again and just released a paint job of it so nobody is inspired to buy it, it just continues the model if parts were no longer available being such an antique detector.”

A GB3 would be great.Β  The only reason to continue the GB2 is customer loyalty.Β  Ask 10 old time prospectors which Gold detector is the best and at least 80% of them will reply, "Fisher Gold Bug 2"!

I hate to see another American Company go under.Β  However, we should keep in mind that Metal Detectors are the only Electronics still made in the USA.Β  We used to produce TVs, radios, phonographs, etc.Β  I surmise that in the name of profits, it all went to Asia (Japan was the China of my youth).

Garrett seems to be holding their own.Β  I wish nothing but the best for FTP and hope they can deliver some of the β€œwants” the serious detecting community desires!Β  As mentioned, it would be a shame for them to purchase brands in the medium to high quality and price range only to end up pushing their lower end products.Β  I’m guessing the only reason for not buying White’s was because they didn’t have the financial resources to do so.

Walt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geotech,

Β  Β  Β Thanks for the brief rundown and history lesson! I'm guessing you could write a book or two, on the subjects you touched on!

Β  Β  I'm also guessing that security product development is not as much fun as the hobby sector, but as with Garrett, it helps pay the bills, and keep them in the game on the hobby side!Β 

Β  Β Thanks again for being here, to give us what information you can! And hopefully, everyone is kind, and doesn't shoot the messanger!!πŸ˜πŸ‘πŸ‘

Β  Β Β 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight Geotech, your blunt honesty is always appreciated.

Sad to hear a lot of that, but not a surprise as most of it was clear as glass.Β  It seems they really have no desire to make anything other than entry level gear using their current technology, perhaps that's where the money is, it likely is especially if they have little chance of competing with the other brands anyway.Β  They've had a good run, every dog has it's day.

The GB3 you speak of with auto tracking and wireless would have been a reasonable seller I would think, sure probably not a big money maker for them as people would just think I've lived with the original for 20 years and got used to the manual GB I'm not paying for a new one to get auto tracking and wireless whichΒ  I can just add on a little $20 Bluetooth transmitter to get. πŸ™‚

They would likely sell more of them than they will the current GB2 especially to new buyers that haven't had one before with it being more modern it would be more appealing.Β  I know I would have wanted one so that's one sale at least πŸ™‚

I guess all that FT has left for me is the Impulse Gold, I'll wait and see how that turns out, if it ever does.

As for this comment from Bohemia Miner.....Β  I also assume you mean Gold VLF is best as if it's up against the other detectors it's a LONG LONG way from the best.

A GB3 would be great.Β  The only reason to continue the GB2 is customer loyalty.Β  Ask 10 old time prospectors which Gold detector is the best and at least 80% of them will reply, "Fisher Gold Bug 2"!

Those same people aren't gong to be rushing out to buy a GB2, they have one.... If it dies they might buy another... possibly second hand, or get it repaired if possible.Β Β Β  I'm not an old time prospector but I don't find the GB2 to be the best, most sensitive to tiny gold? possibly but there is very little in it and for most other reasons I'd rather use something else.Β  I like it's little coil and how it's not bump sensitive at all, but some of the competitors have non-bump sensitive very sensitive coils too on detectors that handle ground better but for me the biggest flaw with the GB2 is it sucks around hot rocks, absolutely sucks.Β  It's too busy making it's boing noise to worry about sounding off on the nugget next to the hot rock, it's about as slow as an old model T Ford, similar vintage too πŸ™‚ vs other detectors that are like Mustangs and quickly recover from the hot rock and let you find the gold.Β  I don't have hot soil but I have hot rocks, and lots of them πŸ™‚

Out of those 10 old time prospectors that 80% think the GB2 is best I would guess not many of them use the GB2 as their primary VLF anymore, for me it's a specialty VLF for certain tasks and other than that, it's my antique collectable.Β 

  • Like 2
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...