Leaderboard

Nokta Gold Pie Generated with AI ∙ April 23, 2024 Nokta Relic Pie Generated with AI ∙ April 23, 2024

A few weeks back my buddy and I braved a snow storm to get to a site that had an open window of opportunity. If we didn't go now we wouldn't be able to get back in until early June because of ranch activity. When we arrived there at 9 am there was 1" of snow on the ground and the storm had subsided. I had both the Deus 2 and Manticore with me but decided to start off with the Manticore and 11" coil. Manticore settings were AT General, 1 region all tones, recovery 5, sensitivity 22, stock ferrous limits, normal audio with a simple profile. Worst part about hunting snow covered ground is the build up you get on the coil, requiring cleaning every few minutes. We hunted for a few hours and for the most part finds were few and far between. I think I had a few small cuff buttons and a percussion cap in my pouch. At about 1 pm the snow started to fall again, so we decided to call it and work our way back to the truck. As I rounded a bush I got a solid 24 on the Manticore and in my mind I thought this could be a gold coin, knowing from testing that the type 1 $1 comes up 23-24. As I was digging the hole I heard thumping and brush crashing to my left to see a moose running past me, stopping just long enough to take a look at me. Taking out a few shovel fulls of soil, the edge of the 1850 $1 gold coin was visible in one of the dirt clods and came from a depth of about 7 inches. I called my buddy over to take a look and take pictures as I broke it from the dirt and put some water on it. Turns out it was worth braving the elements. For those interested, the ID for US gold coins on the Manticore are Type 1 $1 23-24 Type 2 & 3 $1 20-21 $2 1/2 37-38 $5 50-51 $10 65-66 $20 76-78.

It’s not that hard to find gold nuggets if all a person wants to do is be a hobbyist and find a few. It’s the making solid money detecting gold nuggets that has gotten extremely difficult. In a way it’s too little too late, but drying up does not mean dry, just getting there. Think silver coins. Not gone, but they sure are rarer finds than 40 years ago, even though machines are far better now. But on the other hand high PI prices have been a barrier to ownership for many; a good low price PI will find buyers, as Alfoforce has already proved. Also, rising gold prices is boosting interest in chasing even the crumbs that are left. Occasional large nugget finds keep the hope alive. Long story short there is still a market for a gold nugget PI, but as Minelab knows very well the heyday is long over. It’s just competition fighting over ever smaller pieces of pie 🙂 This is a real problem overall for all detector companies now. There is not one area of detecting that is not facing declining returns. People still beach hunt, still hunt for silver coins, still hunt for relics, still chase gold nuggets. Newbies are still enticed into the fold. But I doubt any of us here who have been at this long think things are as good as they used to be. In a way we are victims of our own success. Long story short Nokta has indeed missed the big bus with this detector that should have come years ago and now they will be fighting for a seat already taken by others. As a nugget hunter I know there is nothing they can do that will really matter except make a machine that clearly blows away a GPZ 7000 and I am not holding my breath for that. In the area of affordable PI AlgoForce is already taking sales from Nokta in Australia, and it’s only the delay in reaching the U.S. that’s giving Nokta any breathing room here. Yes, they are way too late compared to what they might have achieved just three years ago prior to the GPX 6000 release. What the market clearly lacks at this time, the machine that I personally would buy, is one that is a very good nugget detector but that also is a fully submersible water machine. Minelab only offers the SDC 2300 but it’s a joke for water detecting since it floats like a cork. Axiom, AlgoForce… not waterproof. Impulse AQ Gold dead before arrival. What I was hoping for from Nokta was a machine that would extend my nugget detecting by also being an excellent beach detector. I would sell all my other PI detectors to own that machine. I think others would also. If there is not a model that captures that desire, then not only will Nokta be late to the party, but they will have lost my interest in this detector. It’s the one thing really left to do, make a good alternative to the 7 lb Garrett ATX. Not a very high bar, but are they even going to try? The initial ad blurb is not promising. I need something better than this…..

I suspect that not only have you gotten technically more proficient at metal detecting, but that your research methods narrowed down the areas where those quality finds were to be made and you focused on hitting them. With better machines, yes, but I'm thinking the key to those quality finds is really between your ears.

As Steve said finds are drying up. Which is not to say that everything is gone. But it does take more research and effort to find good spots to detect. I've personally found more good quality finds over the last 10 years of my 40+ years of metal detecting, than those earlier years. Finds 40 years ago were plentiful, but the quality of the finds wasn't there. Technology has played a big part in bringing those good targets to light. That being said, I can see the writing on the wall and so my push over the last few years is to get my metal detector arsenal down to a few VLF's and 1 good PI. For me having multiple metal detectors is just getting to the point of it being too hard to store all the coils available for each unit and keep track of headphones, charging cables, etc. I've already settled on the 2 VLF's I prefer at the moment. But I'm still looking for the perfect PI. Hopefully Nokta will bring out something that will compete with what's already out there and at the same time offer people the features they have been asking for.

September 23 2002 The Gold Fades Conor and I did the gold cleanup today while Jacob and Clay worked the dig site and hauled pay. The gold weigh was disappointing and surprised us. There were 35.5 ounces. This was about a third less gold than the last cleanup gave us and I was puzzled. However, Jacob told the crew he thought he knew why the gold total had dropped. He said that he was no longer digging at the bedrock level he had been at but now digging at the top of a new area where the bedrock dropped deeper as he had shown me. Therefore, the gravels from this weigh were well above bedrock but still fairly rich in gold. He continued on to say that what he believed about a huge pot of gold in the bottom of this digsite should still be correct. The only way we would know for sure was to find it. Our gold count from this pit now total’s a whopping 419.7 ounces. Our total for the year now sits at 1115.9 ounces. Jacob actually believes that we could double this total when our current pit is finished. TO BE CONTINUED ................

September 22 2002 Part Three We finished up our day without any problems or interruptions with 100 yards of washed gravel. We will do the cleanup in the morning. Guard duty will be shared in shifts tonight starting at dusk. I am ready to get the season finished up and head for home. I have not talked with Jacob or Conor about their plan to stay the Winter out here but I think it is a bad idea. TO BE CONTINUED .............

Yes some of the gains have been made due to research. But in the case of mineralization handling and recovery speed, more finds have come to light due to those changes in metal detectors. Without naming a certain model or brand, there is a site I've hunted for at least a decade with an older model/brand machine and thought I had it cleaned out. New detector X comes out and in the first few months of using it on this same site 15 silver coins come to light all dating pre 1860.

Steve you nailed it once again! Had the same chat this morning on the river Thames........finds drying.During the pandemic they issued licence like there is no tomorrow from 2k larkers to 9k.............now licence are not issued because most of licencee dont report their finds.......still managed some coins this morining with the manticore and yes 1 was silver no gold nugget though........... RR

Attended Gerry's class this weekend and did not go home empty handed. Found my first two nuggets! A .42 and a .25 gram. Using my Manticore and the M8. Dime is for size reference only. Happy as could be! - Dave

In a last ditch effort to find something cool today I went out into my pasture this evening. I found a gun. Judging by the barrel the kid used too many caps at once. 😱😂

Steve, This is what I came up with on my air tests for the gold coins that I have in my collection. Very close to Andy's results. Again, this was an air test but still interesting.

On the subject of gold and its value back in 2002 -- gold was anywhere from $310 to $350 an ounce that year. There were several partners that were part of the crew early in the season and left. They got their gold cut up to the time of leaving. When they were there and working it was a 4 way equal split. After they left the gold was being split up equally amongst Jacob and myself. When Conor came to the mine Jacob paid him out of his cut. Gold cuts and percentages can be a touchy thing, especially when there is gold fever in the camp. It can destroy a crew and ruin friendships. We were lucky. Jacob was not a greedy person. In fact, he was quite generous. Did we ever hit the jackpot at the end of the rainbow? Let's find out.

Gerry included, there have been several very helpful people here that I would have to thank for their help, the well-knowns like Gerry and Steve, Chris, Rob and Ron, and the other members whom I was able to meet up with and go detecting with. I was recently fortunate enough to meet up with one member here who brought me out to one of their detecting places and gave me some great tips and pointy fingers, and as a result, this is what I found with my 6000. A little .21g nugget, and my first. They’ll go unnamed, but they know I’m very appreciative to be able to go detecting with them. Thank you!

From https://cornellpubs.com/manufacturer/hubley-toy/ "Hubley — Founded by John Hubley in about 1894 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the Hubley Manufacturing Company made cast iron toys. Its earliest products were trains and trolleys powered by live steam, electricity, or spring mechanisms. Hubley produced stoves and still banks beginning in 1909. It later added horse-drawn fire and circus wagons, cap pistols, trucks, cars, motorcycles, and, in the 1920s, dollhouse kitchen appliances. By 1940 Hubley had become the world’s largest manufacturer of cast-iron toys. Increasing freight charges and foreign competition made the company switch to die-cast toys of a zinc alloy. Hubley was acquired by Gabriel Industries in 1965 and now produces die-cast zinc and plastic toys as well as hobby kits." Photo of a similar model for sale here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/256318411250

Here we go again. Sigh. I'm just burnt out on this empty speculation about yet another upcoming detector. Nokta's naming contest is nonsense. Who gives a crap? I'm not criticizing anyone but gad, this same reaction occurs every time a new detector is mentioned. What is it? What isn't it? What will it have? What won't it have? What should it have? It reminds me of off season football. No one is playing but every day the airwaves are filled with talking heads speculating on what if's that never happen. If we didn't all play this game then the companies would knock off the early intro campaigns. But we can't, hence this rumor-filled, speculative purgatory we have once again created. Lesson to all of us: just go out and hunt. And try this on for size: post some finds. Walt Kelly said it best. Bill

Yup. The silence is deafening. Is it so hard to just tell us what is coming and about when it will arrive? I have the attention span of a gnat and have already moved on.

Air tests are a must for establishing baseline results. In ground it can be all over the map depending on mineralization and adjacent targets. Thanks for adding to the results!

Probably not simply that as since 1866 the weight (8.359 g), the composition (90% gold, 10% copper), and the diameter (21.6 mm) have been held uniform. However, the diameter did change in 1866 and both composition and weight were different prior to 1839. Is the $5 piece you're referring to have a date earlier than 1866? Back on the general topic of Manticore ID values, I often wonder if mode choice in particular, and other variables like recovery speed have an effect. It would seem that the calibration isn't perfectly linear from one group of settings to the next so to make a perfectly matching VDI scale would take a lot of effort on the part of detector designers/prototypers/manufacturers.

I'm in agreement, at least in a theoretical view. Training takes quite a bit a lot of input data. But maybe detectorists could collaborate, uploading results to common database website. There may also be a downside to this, acceptable by some but maybe not by others. That is the partial (or more) removal of the skill of the detectorist. Here's a loose comparison which probably instigates its own debate, but I'll go with it anyway. How much gold is $1 worth? I'm not going to look up the spot price but recently I think I've seen USA $2400/ozt so I'll go with that -- at least its ballpark for this argument. Divide those two numbers and you get 1/2400 of a troy ounce of (pure) gold is worth $1.00. 480 grains (abbreviated 'gr') per ozt, so a grain of gold is worth about $5.00. 1 gr is about 0.065 grams (abbreviate 'g') so 0.013 g of gold is worth $1. Folding in purity of nuggets, let's say 0.015 g. Do people get satisfaction from digging an 0.015 g of gold? Many do; however it's obviously not because of the monetary value but rather the difficulty of doing that, both from a skill standpoint but also in some sense the rarity of even this size nugget's findability. Compare that to the accomplishment of finding four USA 25 cent pieces (aka 'quarters'). Yes, some see that as an accomplishment and this isn't meant to demean anyone. But for a lot of people there is a big difference. OK, now create a tool that is so good that the novice and the seasoned veteran have the same chance of finding a tiny nugget. (They still have to be placed in the right spot, another skill which isn't equally shared....) Does that deteriorate the feel of accomplishment for some. (Yeh, I know, the detector manufacturers don't give a rat's a__ if they lose a hundred experts for every thousand novices they gain.)

Because the odds might be low, they are not zero. So you guys hit a place repeatedly, notching out your low odds targets. Eventually the target id numbers you are digging will find nothing. It’s not a matter of if, but when. At that point you either abandon the location, or go dig the numbers you passed up before. If you don’t, somebody else will. As good finds deplete people drift more and more to digging everything, because eliminating any trash item also can eliminate good items. Thats why looking for reasons not to dig is in the long run a fruitless endeavor. It only works when cherry picking works, and eventually cherry picking will play out at any location. Nugget hunters figured this out a long time ago.

I understand where @IBMe is coming from. It's good to see the perspective and out-of-the-box ideas of newcomers to the hobby who are not biased by being steeped for years in the technologies and features that the detector manufacturers feed us. Technology is not holding this idea back, because it has been tried before. This is more about human biology (how humans process sensory input) and human factors engineering (how to present information in a manner that enables efficient and effective processing by a human) than it is about technology. Furthermore, it probably makes more sense to directly "visualize" the processed target signal rather than the processed audio from that processed target signal. And guess what, that has also been done with the various target trace implementations. The fact is, target audio is no accident, it is designed to provide the detectorist with a lot of target information that is embedded in the nuances and subtleties of the audio signal (volume, tonality, harmonics), and with repeated "training" and "muscle memory" via target recovery and audio conscious and subconscious signal association, enables the detectorist to learn those nuances and become even more effective than what can be visually displayed and interpreted on the fly. That is not to say that visual target representations are not effective. Of course they are, as evidenced by the more sophisticated target trace displays successfully used by detectorists on high end detectors. But like I said, those are processed from the "source" target signal, rather than secondarily from the processed and generated audio waveforms. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. And the need to discover buried ordnance in the wars of the first half of the 20th century was the real the impetus for refining the induction balance and pulse induction metal detecting principles that are also used in the hobbyist detectors of today. It is really defense and security applications, followed by gold prospecting that keep the technology progressing for the hobbyists. If defense or security applications can be more effective with more sophisticated visual target representations, you can believe the detector manufacturers will invest and leverage that technology for hobbyist applications, if it is cost effective. They key to "visual" target representation, whether you do that from the processed target signal directly or from the processed target audio, is determining how to effectively visualize the target attributes in a manner that enables the operator to enable the operator to efficiently, unambiguously, and reliably interpret those visual queues and to effectively integrate them with the audio target information they are also getting (without confusing the operator). If the graphic visual target implementation can be picked up by the operator rather naturally with little need for "training" (i.e., swinging the detector for hundreds of hours before it "clicks") then that is a bonus. There have also been incremental advances in coil winding technology that have improved coil performance (depth and sensitivity) and ergonomics (weight). Discrete tube-based circuits, gave way to semiconductor electronics, which fostered in more compact integrated circuits that enabled more sophisticated target processing in the form of rudimentary ferrous discrimination and ground effect compensation circuits as well as more sophisticated visual and audible target identification. High speed digital signal processing and power electronics ushered in even more sophisticated target ID interfaces as well as enabling a greater ability to separate targets in high target density environments (high recovery speeds vs. depth), generate higher transmit powers with less weight and heat, enabled more sophisticated EMI cancellation, and also enabled advanced features like the myriad of simultaneous multiple frequency transmission protocols that exist today. The next enabling technology for advancing the sophistication of both visual and audio target ID representations from where they are today probably resides in the detector designers' effective harnessing of the power of artificial intelligence/machine learning. Imagine a detector that gets smarter/more effective at target identification (and has the ability to evolve how it presents that more effective data to the detectorist) the more you swing it. That is probably the next frontier or evolution/revolution in advancing the state of the art in metal detection. At least that's my take.

https://www.minelab.com/community/treasure-talk/specific-ground-balance-on-the-gpx-detectors I was curious if anyone uses the specific ground balance method with their 5000’s in areas with high iron content and uniform ground conditions that are hard to get a ground balance in Gen. ground balance. Attached is Phil Beck’s from Minelab’s write-up on it.

I rave about the Manticore all the time to one of my digging buddies. He broke down and ordered a Manticore this past weekend. It should be in this week. He has them all and swings the D2, Legend, 900, and CTX. I'm looking forward to seeing what he thinks about it.

We used one of the larger sizes for dredging to move rocks out of the whole.

That's it. I can only imagine the kid running around after bad guys with it. And the disappointment when he lost it in irrigation ditch.

Congrats on the first gold nuggets... Gerry, Lunk and the rest of that crew have helped many a newbie get hooked on gold fever... My first time out with them and my first nuggets back in 2014 and yea I got hooked good times... strick

Agreed: When I'm using my Legend in an aluminum trash site and looking for gold, I don't dig 11, 46/47, and 28/29. For me, 11 has always been small foil, 46/47 has always been a penny, dime, or a full size aluminum screw cap, and 28/29 has always been a rectangular pull tab. Granted those lower numbers could be a gold ring, and the penny / dime signal could be a very large gold ring, but I play the odds...and the odds overwhelming tell me those numbers won't be a gold ring.

Good going UT Dave, nice gold, beware of picking up one of Gerry's" toothy" habits when finding gold.

Apex/Axiom style control housing and menu layout is definitely one of the best setups on the market right now. Nice wide screen and LCD that's easy to read and don't have to wear a pair of reading glasses to see the screen. Menu on both machines are great too. You don't have to have the user manual in your hand trying to figure how many sub-menus and hidden options there are or try to decipher icons on the screen. I would like to see a 3 piece rod system with camlocks similar to the Axiom (maybe not as beefy) on the next model so it can be collapsed down nice and compact.

Thanks Chuck. Yes research is a big part of success. But most of these camps I hunt have been hit for decades before I ever got to them. Maybe a pocket of untouched relics here and there where I found a bunch of stuff concentrated. But more importantly, the people that hit the areas were after the high conductive targets. Big bullets, big buttons and silver coins are all but gone. Plenty of the low conductors left if you don't mind sorting through the .22 brass, .22 lead and percussion caps. Generally speaking, officers were paid in gold and enlisted men paid in silver. Enlisted men's pay in the 1850's was about $11 a month if I remember correctly. Whereas an officer would earn anywhere from $30-40 a month.

A few more photos of the Aurora Lights viewed over the weekend from various places around the Queenstown area. Very spectacular. I believe Mitchel is heading for Queenstown. D4g

I don't see why anyone would think prospectors don't need ferrous disc. A gold PI is typically going to be designed to hit the tiniest bits possible and that can also mean tiny ferrous bits. A relic PI might be more tuned to hit bullet size targets at max depth while being less sensitive to every tiny bit of ferrous trash. In theory though you can do both in one detector so interesting to see why they feel the need for two models. It could be nothing more than what coil the machine comes with. We have no idea what the detector really looks like but let's go with the fuzzy profile as being real. Standard configuration with collapsing three piece rod, fairly large underarm battery. Big question - it it submersible? Beach hunters will be disappointed once again if the answer is no.

I had a panic when I first saw that thinking because I was an early adopter, I probably had a version they've now changed with revisions since it hit the public and the bugs show their little ugly faces, it appears the version has yet to change as new ones still have the same number so that calmed me down 🙂 It is abnormal they would let you see that information if they were doing hardware changes over time though, you'd normally see that in a secret diagnostic menu that requires a certain combination of button presses or connection to certain software via USB to see, which the detector probably also has.

the M8 (small Manticore) coil is very similar in performance to the 6" Equinox coil on small gold although it will likely go a bit deeper as the gold gets bigger, I am not thinking there would be any benefit going to the 18" coil for prospecting purposes, the 15x12" both models have would be as big as you'd ever want to go and that has very limited application. The 11" both models have is a good prospecting coil though as they're both very sensitive detectors to small gold even with the abnormally large 11" coil for a VLF for prospecting. It gives very good depth on gold for a VLF using that coil in the right ground conditions, and obviously the smaller coils have their benefits for tiny gold. The only good coil for prospecting missing from the Manticore that the Equinox series has is the Coiltek 10x5" although the M8 isn't all that much different in size so it's not critical. I was wary at first about the Manticore coil limitations for prospecting, but quickly found because of the increased power of the detector that the shortfall in coil options is made up for by the detector itself, and there is still the chance Coiltek will come out with coils for it, I think they might have a waiting period for doing so, so Minelab can gather up the sales of their coils first so it could be a couple of years.

Thanks for posting this Ron, I certainly will give it a try & compare.

I don't understand where you're saying you put the silicone Ray. So you're putting silicone on somewhere AND using the coil cover?

I was a little late in getting more done. Did get a small batch of park probes out. https://www.ebay.com/itm/276423995110?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=-5lIdJmkRTe&sssrc=2047675&ssuid=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY HH, Ken

Now this is really cool! Because some sluices/highbankers are made out out of light ABS plastics, they fit nicely on utility sleds. And, you can find ones which are solid, with no holes. Guess what? They float on water, allowing the user of this mining equipment to "float" it along a body of water and travel great distances to find new locations for gold. I just purchased a new one today (my old sled is wearing out). That's what I did today, and I call it a success!You can now travel great distances with ease, opening up new locations which previously were probably unattainable due to their distances at one time. The world is your oyster, I mean nugget!

It works both ways. On a brands only forum one can easily sing the praises of a detector without having to say another detector is bad by comparison. I also did a lot of detector reviews, and I rarely did them by comparing to some other machine. I just talked about what I liked about a particular detector and offered tips for how to get the best out of it. I’d mention a thing or two I did not like also - no machine is perfect. But it never required comparing to some other detector. That’s the best way to go on a brand forum as using the place to knock some other brand ends up chumming for pushback.

I have used the Tenergy with no problems. Here is an older thread on the subject. Since I mainly nugget hunt my pinpointers really don't get enough use to justify using rechargeables and I've reverted to using regular 9Vs.

That had to be heartstopping when the first hint of gold revealed itself!

Maybe backed up by the Turkish government...................so funds are limitless ,been twice to work in Turkey they manufacture a lot of good stuff, pleasant people and very hard working never heard a complain and the food is amazing.Whats not to like RR

I killed many,many bad men with one of those, I also robbed banks and stage coaches. and absolutely no mortal man could out draw me, but nothing matched my famous shot when I got the giant rattlesnake in the eye at 300 paces. The next day was even more exciting. Thanks for the memories.

Can it catch it up to the Manticore for depth though as this video makes it look terrible by comparison, seems a lot of messing around when you have other detectors that natively hit the same depth without doing anything, especially switching into a tricky to access mode to check a target? whenever you get a suspect deep target. I read a lot of people saying the Legend is a bit of an 8" max detector and many comment on it's not very deep compared to others, the same thing I found with my Simplex and a guy I know in NZ sold his for that very reason, although that was very early on in the firmware updates, he didn't give it much of a chance. Every time I think I'll jump onboard and buy one I read stuff that puts me off! Although as soon as I can get my hands on a Nel Snake for it I'll buy it regardless for a waterproof creek gold detector, albeit second hand as even though we are a tiny market they're regularly available second hand, usually they're on multiple owners though. The Deep Target feature sounds more viable to use than Beast mode. I think the naming of Beast mode was a poor choice as it makes it sound like it's something super powerful and perhaps got people's expectations too high.

Hoping you have a great time. Gold will be an amazing bonus.

Maybe because there was/is lots of gold there. Goes without saying I reckon. D4g

I had no problem with customer service, used once. Turn around was quick. Second AQ had a bad coil connection on the detector side. It was a easy fix, they sent me a new machine. All took about 3 weeks, they even paid for the postage to them. My only argument with FT ... it should have been a longer warranty since many took a chance, and offered their time. I probably would not have noticed that but look at the D2, a 5 year warranty. At one time Fisher sold many CZ20s..Lifetime warranty.

I thought you guys wanted to see E1500 finds, didn't realize you had size and depth requirements. I'm sure more performance orientated finds and testing will show as deliveries continue. I'd still be happy knowing it's finding these Nuggs and not missing them.

In the air, the LG28 gets about 2" more depth than the LG24 on a coin facing flat toward the coil. With an in ground test though, the depth difference on the flat coin is only about 1", which is likely caused by more ground signal with the larger coil. With the buried coin on edge, I found no depth difference between those coils. I suspect that's because the smaller elliptical coil has a denser electromagnetic field, that makes it significantly more sensitive to small targets such as coins on edge. Given that I doubt most coins are lying flat, the marginal depth difference only on flat lying coins, the much lighter weight of the LG24, much less EMI with the Lg24, and the superior unmasking / separation of the LG24, then I choose the LG24 over the LG28 every time.