Leaderboard

Happens to be my Birthday and anniversary today . And 49 yrs old. Had to show off my Birthiversary cake .

I have a soft spot for the TDI-SL since it was my baby. Originally I had plans for taking it further, and if you look closely at the PCB you will see those plans. But the reality is, that platform has pretty much reached its limit, which is why I was spending all my efforts developing a whole new platform. Unfortunately, White's made some choices that killed the whole thing. Reducing the delay to 8us is easy-peasy. Getting it to work is not. Getting it to work in a way that's manufacturable is even worse. If you measure carefully, you will even notice that the 10us setting on the TDI is actually closer to 11us. If a lower delay was easily doable on the SL, it woulda been done. The reality is that the SL is fast approaching its EOL. There are new competitors on the horizon that will absolutely run rings around the TDI. If not the QED (and I'm as big a skeptic as anyone) then there are others. In the end, the only way to keep it alive will be to lower the price to $599, with free shipping. All this said, I whole-heartily encourage you to spend a lot of time & effort trying to improve the SL.

Its not that the textbook info is wrong, but that it is focused in a different direction. It is focused on deposits mining companies want to find or at least did want to find and work when the book was written. Almost none of that stuff is written with the individual prospector in mind. As Rob hinted at, a lot of placer gold comes from deposits that do not look like your big classic quartz vein. Sure, some placer comes from quartz veins, but if nearly all of it did, probably 90 percent of the gold we detect would be specimen, rather than most gold is nugget, and a little is specimen. A few places like Moore Creek in Alaska produce a lot of gold that is specimen in nature and clearly comes from a vein - but a lot of gold does not come from obvious veins. So in my book, Fists Full of Gold, you will find a good discussion - honestly probably better than any I have seen in other books - about placer sources like little veinlets, seams and mineralized fault zones that produce placer gold. While I totally agree with Rob that buying from a dealer who is experienced and will give you a good day's training is well worth the small expense over buying from some cut rate mail order place that once you buy you are on your own, a days training hardly makes one an experienced prospector. Yes, get your day's training, yes, read some good books and the ICMJ, and that will give you a valuable leg up in getting started, but in the end you will need to put in some time in the field and gain some experience actually looking at things out in the field and finding some gold on your own. The most valuable experience of all is that which you gain in actually finding and digging your own gold.

Hey Steve and all, Ya, Geology training would be great, but let me just toss one thing out there. When I was in college, my passion was in Economic Geology. I have hundreds of books on mining, ore deposits, mineralogy and much more. I focused my studies more on gold, but there is nothing real specific to just gold. That being said, I was doing the electronic prospecting pretty heavy at this time. In my opinion, I found less gold nuggets knowing too much about Geology. I know this sounds a bit whacked, but I chased too much "Textbook" knowledge about vein/ore deposits that I overlooked smaller areas that had better potential for gold nuggets. The old saying is, "Gold is where you find it." I learned his the hard way, chasing too much textbook info and less field work information. If you want to be the best prospector, have an open mind. I walked over a lot of gold as I had too many "textbook blinders" on. Hope you understand where I'm coming from. Learning about geology and ore deposits are great, but don't allow that to take over your thought process when you're on the ground. Gold nuggets normally (in my opinion) are from much smaller seams/veins, which the geology on this don't always follow the same as the larger, more distinctive ore deposits/veins. That being said, some dealers like myself spent an entire day training. We are more than willing to train customers on whatever they need to know beyond the detector use. I always recommending buying from someone that is willing to train and cater to your personal detecting needs. Some great dealers here in the US that are more than willing to help get anyone up and running! Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Rob Allison

Hey Scott, Got solid confirmation they are shipping today (Friday) and the remainder Monday per Minelab America's. My best guess, any dealer that had a pre-order in a long time ago will at least have some coils allocated off this shipment. I will have yours for sure! Take care, Rob Allison Rob's Detector Sales

I've always been a big supporter of the independent developer, both through Geotech and my jobs with White's and FTP. The QED coulda been released years ago through White's, and probably as a better incarnation than what's about to hit the street. But I gave Howard a choice: you can either continue to throw rocks at Minelab, or you can let us build QEDs. Can't do both. Unfortunately, he picked up another pile of rocks. It'll be interesting to see how well the QED performs. Despite the way things wound up at White's, I wish him well.

Geocommunicator is being decommisioned in a few weeks. There is a new site called BLM Navigator that will supposedly amalgamate a bunch of old functionality along with some new into one place. https://navigator.blm.gov/home Though it's not even close to done, most the stuff there is missing or broken as of now. I was going to make a seperate post on this, but they keep not getting it updated so it's not really worth using yet. I've been told they are adding new functionality like direct links to MTP's from the map interface, potentially even public/private mineral ownership such as on their paper maps. Potentially even claims again. But who knows. I applaud Land Matters for picking up their slack, but this is all publically funded data and it really should be provided as a service to tax payers by the agency responsible for managing it ultimately since we've already paid for it, especially since a direct connection to their database would mean instant syncing and the most up to date data possible, instead of the bi-weekly (if they are on time, which is rare) email and server dump they current use to distribute LR2000 updates for 3rd party mapping programs.

The recent post on "Lode Claims" discuss a interesting and important subject on involving lode & placer mining claims and access. Beside the good information it demonstrates just how serious miners are about their claims holdings. So make sure you get "express written permission" from the mining claim owner(s) before entering onto their claims to prospect and/or detect. A word of advice leave your pets and firearms at home and take your trash out with you. If you agree to share a portion of your finds with the owner(s) keep your word. Don't close the door for the next person. So how do you contact a claim owner(s) to get permission to prospect/detect on a open active mining claim. There are several members far more update on these BLM websites than me and will fill in most of my mistakes and omissions. This should at least get us headed down the road. Using Foxfire as the browser ( these websites are not user friendly so use the BLM Tutorial and type in information exactly as indicated per the LR2000 samples; use all Caps. For overall claim filing information and location description (lode & placer); Booklet http://www.BLM.gov On the left margin click on "What we do" then hit "more"; scroll down to the following two topics: Mining and Mineral; Mining Claims and Sites on Federal Lands. https://navigator.blm.gov/home Click on the "Inactive map" located in the upper center of the page; you will see a tool bar along the top of the map for zooming in & out and panning. On the right margin click the "PLSS" button for bring up meridian, township, range, section grid on the inactive map; click on the +zoom in then click on the ma to move to the area (state) you want; write down the "median, township, range and section" numbers. http://www.BLM.gov/lr2000 Located on the left margin click through and read “Tutorial”, “Help Guides”, “Reference Codes” Click on “Run Reports”. Scroll down to “Public Mining Claims Reports” Click on “Pub MC Geo Index” Click the “Meridian Township Range Section *” and ” County” buttons; Click “Select Criteria” at the bottom The “Mandatory Criteria” window will pop up. Click on the “Set” button for each criteria then the “Close” after selecting or entering the information requested. “Admin State” select a state from the scroll down window; Close In “Case Disposition” select “Active”; Close The “Meridian Town Range Section” (MTRS) window has a MTRS Format sample located on the upper left; use all Caps; enter the information in the box just below “Clear Above Valves” then hit the check button. You can run more the MTRS at a time; click the “Select All” button; Close “County” select a county from the scroll down window; Close click “Run Report” Confirm your selections then click” OK” The report will include claim names, number, location by MTRS down to the NW, NE, SW, SE corner of the section per page# 10 of the BLM booklet “Mining Claims & Site on Federal Lands”. Clicking a “claim number” of any individual claims will bring the claim document; the claim owner(s) are listed by name, address and zip code; including the claim size in acres. The county “Recorders Office” of the county where the claim is located will have copy on file of the claim owner(s), address, claim size, type, and specific location in the section (booklet page#10 sample: 20 acre Placer Claim E 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 per section, township, range, meridian.) or you can just join a prospecting and/or detecting club in your area of interest. Good Luck

If it is for real I will not hesitate to be that third party, no worries, but don`t hold your breaths waiting for the review. Maybe Chris might be shown one next time he goes driving about town, and he`ll beat me to the first sighting....................... But aside from all that it would be the bees knees of all PIs, and certainly what we`d all love from Santa.

Thanks RenoChris, we have already consulted attorneys and we have expert witnesses lined up. I'm not seeking legal advice here, but was posting to share what I have found out, and merely inviting comment. best regards, Chris.

Look, I an not an attorney and do not offer real legal advice. For legal advice you should consult an attorney. That said, the opals of Virgin Valley are deposited in a bedded deposit of clay which has an alluvial / colluvial origin. Within that bedded deposit, old wood and other materials have been replaced by opal, some of which is precious. Under item iii of the cfr you quoted, because it clearly is a bedded deposit, it should be taken as a placer. It is not rock in place - the very wood that became the opal is evidence that it is sedimentary in origin and a bedded alluvial / colluvial deposit of ash and tuff. If you are seriously considering legal action and the nature of the claim as a placer or lode makes a difference, I would strongly urge you to get competent legal advice from an attorney with extensive experience in mining law and an independent geologist if necessary . It will be money well spent even if it costs $500 or more.

So much simpler to use Land Matters if you don't know Township, Range, Section, etc. Geocommunication.gov has been garbage for years. Not necessary to use Foxfire for lr2000 Those are good instructions for lr2000

Rob, thank you for the suggestions. The SL can safely handle up to 16 volts, and I've tested it with higher voltage batteries with a good increase in performance. The issue with an 8usec delay is choosing a coil that can operate smoothly at that setting. Gotta go with a smaller coil at that low of a pulse delay. A small folded mono with a hot battery and 8usec delay... You will be closer to GMT-sized nuggets with that combo.

AussieMatt pointed out on another thread that lo and behold, the QED has appeared. I am not going to mess with all the long back history. Instead, it looks like we may finally have a new detector model from an independent designer after so many false starts over the years. If nothing happens to upset the cart reports should be coming in from Australia in the near future. Anyway, congrats to bugwhiskers and company. I truly do wish for it to go well for all involved.

Brian that is very kind of you. We are the closest manufacturer to your neck of the woods and I hope to see you out there when I head down to NV next year! Initial test with a 14.8 volt battery (overcharged to 16+) showed the TDI SL within an inch of the PRO on nickel and larger-sized targets and neck and neck on smaller targets. This was with the stock 12" coil and also the smaller 7.5" DF. Wide open on both machines, GB off, delay of 10usec. But the SL was a lot smoother at full throttle. You can try it yourself for proof. I need to test it with more aftermarket coils like the MJD and Coiltek, but I would guess that results will be similar. You can make your own battery pack with a set of 4 18650's and some clever wiring but we hope to have a proper version soon. Such a simple change, and the bonus is it will fit all of our other machines that use that style of battery!

VA, "Weather Report" from over here on the orange belt of the Sierra Nevada west slope. Up from the mid 20's to high 40's today with rain, snow on the way. My shower this morning was a little to hot for my liking. Apparently, I should have read through this post earlier. I have a used dealer Makro Gold Racer still under warranty due in Saturday. Plan to used it to scrub some stock piles I don't care to haul off site for motorized processing. Don't expect anything above grain. I have the big stuff in my poke next the gold coins. Folks sure are tight lipped when it comes to Northern Nevada gold detecting, making me take the long way around. Sorry don't know anything regarding MD Arizona other than it's supposed be warm. The little woman has family in Melbourne and Broken Hill. Unfortunately, they have already meet me. Need to go wrap the oranges, know where I get my hand some some extra foil, preferably gold in color? The accent that Quincy, Ca or Quincy, OK, sounds to soft for Texas. When operating, how's the MG Racer working for you? Semper fi doc Smitty says "hey "and thanks you fer detectin' that metal in his buttock.

Tom, I'm in the valley every month, I live in Junction City. I even do field testing up Quartzville Creek, so I drive right by White's on the way. Next time I'm out that way I'll give you a yell.

" Quod Erat Demonstrandum" "That which was to be shown" or "Thus it has been shown"

It finally snowed here on the valley floor so my fair weather friend packed up in a rush and headed for a warmer climate. Since I'm snowed out, maybe for a few months, I thought it would be a good time to clean out my Jeep. I was removing six month old lunches, wads of dog hair, orange peals,apple cores, banana peels, empty break fluid cans,square nails, bullets and some greenish slime that may be useful for starting another round of human evolution and VAPauls GPZ7000. I called Paul and bragged about my new found treasure. The connection to his cell phone wasn't very clear and my hearing isn't very good so I thought he ask me to send it to Kingston, Alabama. He called this morning and ask if I got his detector sent off. Yup I sure did. He called from Kingman, Arizona.

Tested with 4 18650's.... Interesting results at 16+ volts fully charged. Eight cells is unnecessary (and too heavy).

Scrap the current battery pack al together, there is plenty of space underneath the circuit board to hold a 2*4 cell 18650 li-ion battery, all is needed is a wider battery door to accept such a battery.

Double Happies, I hope ya'll had a great day!

I wonder - what about evaporites? Some can be considered semi precious or even gemmy (water clear barite for instance, or even some fancy crystalline halite structures), and they can form in "veins" or even larger pods or lenses/layers within voids in unconsolidated sediment can't they?. It seems they would be classified as lode deposits, and not placer even if they may or may not have been secondary minerals derived from a placer deposit. If so, the case for opal forming as a replacement material in situ and being classified as a lode may have some kind of arguable case. I don't have an opinion one way or another on the opal, I'm just thinking it through and curious. *thinking more, can't chert be formed from biologic material or replaced it, and within beds of unconsolidated sediment? I guess I'm not aware of any chert beds within still-unconsolidated sediment, but it's not something I really look for specifically either. But just curious, because an in place chert deposit seems like it'd be lode material too.

I won't address the wisdom of which form of claim those deposits are best located as. I will point out that the opal deposits there have been patented as both lode (Royal Peacock patent - 6 lode claims) and placer (Rainbow Ridge patent - 5 placer claims). Obviously the DOI Secretary is as confused about the issue as others may be. The "CFR" you are quoting Chris is not the actual CFR but the eCFR. The CFR does not work on a question/answer format and it's the only official compilation of agency regulations. The eCFR is cute but it's the readers digest version of the CFR. Here's the explanation from the introduction to the eCFR: The edit and emphasis are mine. You can usually find these types of definitions by going to the top level of the government website you are viewing. Being an unofficial version and rewritten as a dialogue it is useful but as indicated by the eCFR itself it's not a reliable source for the actual regulations. Bringing those eCFR quotes to a court or relying on the editors interpretation of the meaning of the regulations is generally inadvisable.

Thanksm Jasong. I will keep everyone updated. We are not looking to make new caselaw, but reinforce what has already been clearly decided in the past. So far all of the caselaw we are using is still good, and shepardized to bring current and any distinguishments. Because most of these issues were settled by the courts long ago, there is very little new law on the subject available. The courts will have to follow existing precedent, and we see no reason for them to stray from earlier decisions. I do think that placer claims have rights to placer mineral deposits, and lode claims have right to minerals in lode form plus the surface. There was a caselaw I read years ago that the lode takes the lode and any surface rights (including the placer) but i will have to go back to find this. I do have reports that our opal occurs in place within consolidated bentonite and montmorillonite zones. I also want to stress the fact that I had permission to be on the placers and to prospect and mine opals and we were not trespassers when the lodes were staked; i had argued with one of the family members of the placer claims that the deposits were lodes but they never changed their claims over for more than 10 years. As for the caselaw placeholders you mentioned (i think there were two of them) they are both for the same citation: GILMORE VS RUBECK, 708 P.2d 486 (1985). In that case it was decided (lode vs placer dispute): Gilmore next contends that the master failed to accord Gilmore, as the prior locator, a presumption of validity of ownership. No error was committed here. In this case, we are not dealing with a question of priority in time. Rather, the focal issue was whether the discovery was proper as a lode or as a placer. Such a question is one of fact. Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 40 S. Ct. 321, 64 L. Ed. 567 (1920); Titanium Actynite Industries v. McLennan, 272 F.2d 667 (10th Cir.1959). A discovery of a placer deposit will not sustain a lode location. Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst., American Law of Mining § 4.15 (1983); see Cole v. Ralph, supra. Thus, a locator identifies the character of the deposit whether it is a lode or placer at his peril. Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst., American Law of Mining § 5.9A (1983); Cole v. Ralph, supra; see Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 102 Ariz. 423, 432 P.2d 435 (1967). The record supports the master's findings of fact that the discovery here properly sustains a placer location and not a lode location. As a result, Gilmore's discovery based on a lode claim is invalid. She, therefore, has not met her burden of presenting a prima facie case and the presumption giving priority of right against a subsequent locator did not attach to her location. The other issue raised by Gilmore is without merit. thanks for your comments and interest :)

Thanks, RenoChris, while i generally agree that most bedded deposits themselves would best be taken as placers, i would argue that in any instance where the bedded deposit itself contains a valuable mineral dispersed therein and within a defined zone or horizon, that would clearly be a lode deposit, whether or not metallic. Perhaps I am wrong, but after reading thousands of cases and law texts on all of this since 2004, my conclusion is that the opal deposits in Virgin Valley are lodes because the mineral is contained in-place. There is a plethora of litigation where sedimentary deposits have been deemed lodes, the main determining factor is the form and character of the deposit and whether or not the mineral is "in-place." Lodes are normally primary (source, or, in-place) deposits whereas placers are normally secondary (accumulation) deposits. The opals formed in the source deposit and have not been moved elsewhere, and they are in place. This raises a good debate, and I do not mean any offense to you or anyone else here. I know the newer CFRs discuss bedded deposits generally being placers, but i think this is different where the bedded deposit contains another valuable mineral in-place, and the majority of the caselaw supports this. I would be interested in any thoughts on this matter. The opal itself does not occur as bedded rock, but in-place within the bedded rock. As such, it clearly falls within 43 CFR 3832.21(a)(2)(i,ii)'s provisions for lodes. This is consistent with all of the older rulings as well. I'm going to have to dig out about 10 boxes of caselaw that I copied back around 2004 and look through them, i'm a little rusty at the moment. 43 C.F.R. § 3832.21 How do I locate a lode or placer mining claim? (a) Lode claims. (1) Your lode claim is not valid until you have made a discovery. (2) Locating a lode claim. You may locate a lode claim for a mineral that: (i) Occurs as veins, lodes, ledges, or other rock in place; (ii) Contains base and precious metals, gems and semi-precious stones, and certain industrial minerals, including but not limited to gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, zinc, fluorite, barite, or other valuable deposits; and (iii) Does not occur as bedded rock (stratiform deposits such as gypsum or limestone) or is not a deposit of placer, alluvial (deposited by water), eluvial (deposited by wind), colluvial (deposited by gravity), or aqueous origin.

I always check the BLM's LR2000 and the local County Recorder/Register of Deeds Office (name varies by state) for the locality, then visually check the area for claim markers, before any prospecting is done. Local research at the county level and on-site is important because there may be new claims not in the Recorders Office or the LR2000 database yet. Thanks for sharing this.

For the small shallow nuggets in nasty mineralized ground, learned a long time ago not to use any coil on the SL larger than 10" (actually, the smaller the better). Hence, at the 8usec and smaller TDI coils a perfect match. Dan Geyer for a brief time made a TDI 4x6 Mono "Shooter" coil that runs so well on the machine that I can run the gain/sensitivity maxed out and the ground balance turned off EVERY TIME I use it and thats no kidding. The Miner John 5x9 Folder Over, Jimmy Sierra 6x10 Duel Field, White's 7.5 DF and the White's 7.5 Mono Aussi have also been good nugget producers and pretty much in that order. I am 100% convinced that making these easy mods. could really be a great thing for the SL as a nugget shooter and revenue producer for White's.

What I didn't tell you in the above post is you get a great looking black case with a long strap to carry over your shoulder if want.. I'd like to thank the powers that be who posted the ad. Chuck

Happy Birthday,enjoy it.

I would buy one of those.

So how does the SL compare, depth wise, to 2 other lower cost PI units, the Garrett Infinium and the Tesoro Sand Shark?

Tom, I've been using the TDI SL for several years, have found my share of nice nuggets and love the machine. Been tempted to go with the SDC2300 for its increased sensitivity but even it can't compete with the ergonomics of the SL. So why not make the SL approach(or match) the sensitivity of the SDC2300. Two modifications to consider that I think would make the SL even more sensitive the smallest gold nuggets: *Increase the input voltage from the factory 11.6 volts.... to 13-16 volts. This could be accomplished by just adding another AA battery to the factory dry cell pack. *Decrease the pulse delay from 10...... to "8" usec. This would (I feel) substantially increase the sensitivity on the smallest nuggets being especially effective using the smaller coils on the TDI SL Talk about breathing new nugget hunting abilities into a already good detector and with the already existing means to do so! How about this: Existing SL users could ship their TDI back to the factory for the "Nugget Hunter Modification Package" which includes having the pulse delay permanently preset at "8" usec, 2 new factory dry cell packs that will hold the " 9" AA batteries ...increasing the voltage to 13+, as well as a general service of the detector. The service cost for such a TDI SL "Nugget Hunter Modification Package"? If you keep the cost below say $200 per machine, I think you will see plenty of participation from existing users. Easy money for White's and a lot of happy TDI SL users, especially myself. Thanks for listening..........Rob

Consider interest expressed, keep us updated on your court case. I too believe that the law is clear, placer and lode claims cover different minerals and one claimaint does not have exclusive rights to all the minerals within a claim boundary if another type of mineral exists that falls under a different claim classification. Though with that said, I also think Reno Chris is right - stuff like bentonite is almost always claimed as placer since it's unconsolidated sediment. Not sure what the exact conditions your opals mineralize up there, but here in Wyoming the opals are lode and not placer because they are located in situ in sedimentary rock, which is different from "sediment". So, I'd be curious to hear a bit more about your case in particular. Also, the case law placeholders were left blank, were you ever able to fill them in? Anways, welcome to the forum. I generally agree with what you posted here, you may find as I have though that there is a lot of old school pressure to show this line of thought is incorrect. But I too think the law is pretty clear for anyone who reads it and stops taking the word of the status quo on word alone. Good luck on your case, post some updates if you have a chance.

I have found my share of gold nuggets with my TDI SL over the past several years, liked the detector so much I bought another. I know there are plenty of better nugget PI's out there these days but not for the price and especially the weight (or lack there of) allowing me to swing all day without fatigue.. I nugget shoot way off the beaten path up steep desert mountains, ridge lines and gullies. The lite weight of the SL and its rugged dependability I'll vouch for....... plus its still in production. Not sure about the SD2200 or future parts and service. I would want to know the answer to that before buying it. The TDI SL is no depth demon and not the PI to use in the larger desert washes. Shallow feeder gullies, residual placer bleeding off the steep slope in iron oxides and even some small nuggets through desert pavement surrounded by iron stone is where my SL has really shined.. I also use the T2, F19 and GMT often to begin with but when encountering highly mineralized ground or hot rock hell overloading my VLF's switching to the TDI always gets me back into the game. I think the best way to describe the TDI SL for nugget hunting; A rugged. lite weight, cost effective PI best suited for hunting nuggets in shallow highly mineralized ground.

Ignoring the placer/lode question I feel compelled to point out that a valid placer claim can not be prospected nor claimed by anyone without the consent of the placer claim owner. Although it's true that invalid claims are subject to prospecting and claim you would need to establish that the claim was invalid before entering it to prospect. Without the cooperation of the claim owner I can't imagine how you could legally do that without a court order declaring the claim invalid. That Catch 22 protects claim owners from everything but their own folly and a mineral challenge by the Federal government.

The original TDI and TDI Pro have excellent performance in pure PI mode. However, gold prospecting is all about how well a PI can perform while ground balancing. I was involved in the TDI development and therefore in 2008 pulled strings to get several of the very first TDI models off the production line shipped to my mine at Moore Creek, Alaska. I ran a pay-to-mine operation there and we provided detectors for those who did not have their own. I replaced four Garrett Infiniums with four TDI units, plus had one of my own. http://www.detectorprospector.com/steves-mining-journal/whites-tdi-moore-creek-alaska.htm The visitors by and large did bring their own detectors, and the GPX 4500 was new in 2008, so people were packing the 4500 and earlier models. Everyone was curious about the new TDI and frankly everyone always wants to see somebody knock Minelab off their pedestal. So lots of comparisons went on that summer, and the result was always the same. The Minelab's easily got big gold deeper and hit smaller gold better. My response was always the same "well yeah, for the money they should". That sounds good at a sales counter, but the fact is people get together with different detectors all the time, and word gets around quick. In any gathering it quickly becomes obvious that money saved on a purchase is false economy when people with more expensive machines are finding the gold while the less expensive machines struggle. This is excaberated by the most experienced people normally using those expensive units, while often the less expensive units are being used by less experienced people. Double whammy. It is not about opinions or bias or anything but simple observable facts in the field as seen by numerous people. The reason the TDI in any version is not selling well with nugget hunters is any Minelab from the SD 2100 on outperforms it for gold prospecting. The gold fields are playing out and it is a performance arms race out there. From the perspective of many people like me it's not whether or not we can afford a Minelab. It is whether we can afford the gold missed by using anything less. Most serious prospectors are extremely practical people, and there is less brand name loyalty or bias then people think. All you have to do to get a prospector to jump ship is show them you have a better mousetrap. Most debates among prospectors these days are over which is better - a GPX or a GPZ? Or maybe the SDC. Or if money is tight, which used Minelab? The TDI is old tech and if White's really wants to get back in the game with prospectors then it is imperative that the new patent tech be brought to market, and soon. The only thing keeping the TDI in play is price and ergonomics, and that advantage may be gone very soon. If Garrett ever puts the ATX circuit in a light, inexpensive housing with decent coils at a lower price the TDI is dead. If Nokta gets something to market using the expired Minelab MPS (Minelab SD series) patent the TDI is dead. There is no point Fisher bringing a CZX to market unless it is a TDI killer. The under $2K high performance market is ripe for the taking.

Hi Chris - Debate of what really is a placer is probaby beyond the scope of this forum, but I will tell you that bedded bodies of sedimentary clay, gypsum and other claimable non metallic minerals are taken as placers. This is because the mineral is in a sediment and is not a lode or vein. While I am not saying someone can legally claim a placer over your lode if your lode is the senior claim, in reality, Virgin Valley opal deposits are correctly claimed as placers.

Welcome Chris -

More caution than is the norm is in order here due to the many unknowns. However, I gather everyone here knows my thoughts on bashing and negativity so please avoid that here. They deserve some time and a fair hearing just like everyone else. As always field reports from regular purchasing prospectors will be very important. Still lots of room for improvement in high power non-VLF units selling for under $2K. All it has to do is beat the TDI and they have the advantage of US imports to Australia being overpriced. And only getting worse with dollar strengthening.

More "Cold Gold weather in NorCal~~~~~ Klunker and I managed to get out today and check the snow pack to see if we could detect. These days we are pretty much looking for south facing hillsides... for obvious reasons. I have been putting off going to AZ about as long as I can... and I haven't decided exactly where to land down there--- I may have to take Lucky's advice and head toward Yuma---- I have never been there and dont know anyone there, but I can figure that out when i arrive... Any advice Condor????? We ended up with 2.5 dwt today and i will let you guess how much i go of that....lol I am going to edit this and add a link to show what the weather was like this morning when i stepped out of my little camper...Brrrrrrrrrrr........ We are bonafide crazy ...........hunting in this weather, but hey, "Cold Gold" is good gold!!!! I enjoy the company--- (he cant hear ,,,so i can just talk and talk hahahahaha.....)

Here is my favorite nugget

I'm no photographer by any means, and the only technique I use is aiming my iPhone. That being said, one of my better close-ups is this one of a 28 gram Arizona nugget that I had just unearthed and given a quick water bath.