Jump to content

New Minelab Manticore


Sheppo

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, phrunt said:

The Legend is quite close to the Nox 800 though, our hopes are this one performs better than the Nox, which is very likely, so while on paper they may sound similar it's the performance that should be the significant difference between this and the Legend, a wait and see I know but I've got my hopes up.

The Nox for me has what I consider excellent Target ID's only beaten by the CTX, if this detector can get the CTX level of ID's I'd be happy as for me it'd make it the ultimate all rounder, at the moment I use my Nox for some things and my CTX for others, If they were now both combined into one detector then what more could I ask for.

The Legend price to performance and features does have a psychological effect on higher purchase decisions. It does cause you to stop and think “is this machine really worth $1,000 more?” From my perspective I’ve accepted that features like 2D target mapping and incremental tweaks to performance are going to cost me a premium. That and I’ve never been able to get comfortable with Nokta Makros predatory pricing strategy as I’m not convinced it’s as much designed to benefit the consumer as it is an attempt at underselling the competition out of business. I could be mistaken on that, but can’t get that idea out of my head, so I’ve chosen to ignore the Legend (though not without temptation). Even so, over the long term competitors like Minelab can only deal with Nokta Makros strategy in one of two ways. They can either lower their prices as well or innovate their way out of it. If they choose to innovate I’m going to support it because that will push the industry forward more than lower cost renditions of previous generation technologies. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

If they had called it the Beast then they could have included Beast Mode and at the flip of a switch 50% more power and 100% more depth plus it would also jam all other detectors within a 1 mile radius.

I remember hearing the Equinox coming in Culpeper 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read something interesting Tom Dankowski just posted on his site.  "Something I want to clarify.... that Mark Lawrie stated in the YouTube video: The ID system is on a scale of 99 points. So is the scale of iron ID range! -99 to 0. (Negative 99 to 0). (((Salt ID's as '0'))). This is to say: Nearly a 200-point ID span."                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

If salt is 0, then the negative numbers can't be the ferrous range, since salt reads higher than a lot of small non-ferrous. So wither salt reads higher than 0, or you better be digging down to around -20 minimum to be recovering small non-ferrous.

What would be the advantage to having a negative 99 ID range? I've never hunted a saltwater beach with the Nox,  where does salt read or does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advantage would be to have a ferrous range. Salt overlaps with low non-ferrous. White's put both salt and small non-ferrous as negative. Note that the small gold nugget range goes lower than the salt range. You could shift salt up to zero, and that's fine, but I would still expect the tiniest non-ferrous to come in lower. I pulled -20 out of my posterior though. Anyway, Tom may very well be right. I'm just a guy that lives on the ferrous/non-ferrous divide, and I obsess over little details that don't matter to lots of people. The actual fact of the matter, in highly mineralized ground any and all targets can read ferrous, on the edge of detection depth.

 

gold-jewelry-gold-nugget-metal-detector-target-id-scale.jpg

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

The advantage would be to have a ferrous range. Salt overlaps with low non-ferrous. White's put both salt and small non-ferrous as negative. Note that the small gold nugget range goes lower than the salt range. You could shift salt up to zero, and that's fine, but I would still expect the tiniest non-ferrous to come in lower. I pulled -20 out of my posterior though. Anyway, Tom may very well be right. I'm just a guy that lives on the ferrous/non-ferrous divide, and I obsess over little details that don't matter to lots of people. The actual fact of the matter, in highly mineralized ground any and all targets can read ferrous, on the edge of detection depth.

 

gold-jewelry-gold-nugget-metal-detector-target-id-scale.jpg

 

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think a large iron range would be awesome, the guys in Europe would likely appreciate it.  Imagine in a field if there was one particular bit of junk, lets say a type of nail, this nail on the large iron range came in for example at -22, but you wanted to dig iron relics but avoid that particular nail that's everywhere, you could ignore -22 and get most of the good iron targets you wanted to get.  I could also see small gold hunters using the larger iron range to their advantage as on the Equinox small gold at depth can come up bouncing as low as -7 even with the occasional flick to -8, with the big iron and -8 and -9, having that larger iron range would give more information.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 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...