Jump to content

Steve Herschbach

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


 Content Type 


Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database



Everything posted by Steve Herschbach

  1. No good on smaller gold (under a pennyweight), but plenty deep on big stuff. In any old SD or GP models just assume you will need to buy a new battery, unless you know for sure that’s not the case. https://www.detectorprospector.com/magazine/steves-guides/steves-guide-differences-between-minelab-sd-gp-gpx-models/ The best way I know of to determine values for used detectors are to explore the eBay Sold listings, to see what the same or similar stuff has sold for recently.
  2. Your browser had built in printing and save page tools, so there is nothing specifically built into the forum for those purposes. I’m often on my iPad, and often save pages directly to pdf files. When on Chrome on my PC, I either save complete web pages, or “print” them to pdf. In either case, printing is as easy as finding the print command. Bottom line, if you don’t know how, Google your browser name and either “print” or “save page” for more info.
  3. Telling people more about what you expect the detector to do for you would be very helpful. Gold prospectors will have a different opinion than beach hunters, for instance.
  4. Great all around PI, if you want one for both in water use, and relic hunting bad ground, it’s about the only real choice, if you want new, with warranty.
  5. Well, I’m half way there, as the steveg longer lower rod I have came predrilled with a hole for the tab. So I’m going to find my best setting for it and drill at least one hole in the middle rod to match. Simply switching to the stock lower rod then be a shorter adjustment, if I add a tab to one of them also. I’ve got room to experiment as I have several each of both middle and lower rods.
  6. The big problem with the 5000 was people not understanding them enough to know how to set them properly. Instead, they would get canned settings off the internet, and run those. That led to people in the U.S. running settings designed for horrible ground in Australia, and which actually hurt performance in milder ground. I generally hunt milder ground, and smaller gold, so Sharp and Sensitive Extra were my go to settings. A GPX 5000 running a Sadie coil and Sensitive Extra should be hitting nuggets 1-2 grains in size with no problem. Fine Gold I only used in bad ground with tough nut hot rocks. It was the go to setting in Australia around the ironstone dikes. They really named that setting wrong, leading people to think it was the setting specifically for small gold when it is not. The setting names were created ad hoc over several generations of models, and in general ended up being a misleading mess. They would have been better off simply numbered in order of application to ground, with salt set aside as a special setting. Long story short the machine got a lot of blame, when in fact it was the operator not really understanding the tool. But PI detectors were made to go big. My best GPX 5000 find..... Minelab GPX 5000 With 6.5 Ounce Nugget At Dig Location
  7. Great going purple. That’s some prime stuff, and I’d take a bucket full of nuggets like those over much larger nuggets when it comes to being able to easily sell them for a decent price. I can say that I’ve found well over $6000 worth of gold now with my GPX 6000, so anything additional I find has me into gravy land. Not all that difficult with $1700 gold as long as a guy has the areas and time to work with.
  8. Let’s assume I was going to be dropped randomly all over the world into a hundred different gold detecting scenarios. Which Minelab non-VLF would I take, if I could only choose one? There will be locations with gold of any potential size, including very large nuggets at depth. There will be extreme salt lake ground. There will be extreme iron stone ground. There will be really trashy ground. In short, any possible scenario you might imagine looking for gold. Which detector do you take, not knowing what you might get hit with? I’d make a strong case for the GPX 5000 with a proper coil selection. It currently comes stock with 11” round DD and 15” x 12” mono. Add a Nugget Finder 8” x 6” mono “Sadie” coil, 14” x 9” mono, and 18” round mono. For the extreme depth package, add a Nugget Finder 25” X-Search DD coil and Detech 32” Concentric coil. This detector will probably find a wider range of gold types in a wider range of ground conditions than any other detector made. The only genuine lack would be very small or specimen gold, and so a good VLF in addition would make it complete. But many serious prospectors will tell you that specking for tiny gold is no way to make a solid income. It’s all about weight, and staying in gram plus gold is the way to put that weight in your pocket. The GPX 5000 Fine Gold setting will handle areas with so many hot rocks you will toss your GPZ 7000 or GPX 6000 in the trash heap. The Salt settings will handle salt lakes with ease. Cancel and a DD handles EMI very well, and adding a figure 8 wound cancellation coil will kill EMI and salt conditions like they do not exist. The GPX 5000 has a reasonably good tuneable discrimination system by PI standards for places that will have 6000/7000 users tearing their hair out. You can even coin, relic, and beach hunt successfully with a GPX 5000, and many would say it is the best relic detector made for highly mineralized ground. Long story short, I very much hope Minelab continues to make the GPX 5000 for a long time. It’s a bargain priced general purpose powerhouse, and in the right hands targeting the gold and locations it excels with, it will still produce the goods, and then some.
  9. To say a 5000 won’t see gold a VLF will see applies as much to the GPX 6000 and GPZ 7000 as the 5000. It’s always been that way with PI units, although the gap has closed tremendously. That still does not make the 5000 worthless, as many would happily attest. Is still put a 5000 up against either a GPZ or GPX 6000 on larger gold (equinox not even close), just based on largest available coil sizes, and it will handle ground conditions/hot rocks that will completely defeat a GPZ or GPX 6000. It still has a place in the Minelab lineup for good reason. That said, for most people on most gold in the U.S., buying now, not five years ago, I do think a GPX 6000 is the best choice going. Much as I love my Equinox, I’d not give up having a PI if the 5000 were the only choice. Even if the Equinox had existed five years ago.
  10. I was not even thinking about underwater use, and the fact that requires wired headphones. Like you, I have Tony's and like them a lot. Guess that could have made for another answer, but instead i guess it will get lumped in with the wired option. I don't think that was really what they were aiming for in this particular question anyway. More about above water and what people are doing there. It's not like Minelab spends a lot of development time on headphones in most cases. The ML80s were just a branded third party item. Not sure about the ML100. It's those proprietary high speed modules where they are actually putting some money into making a product, and I can't see that lasting, as Bluetooth will eventually be so fast nobody cares anymore. Many uses do not worry about lag, like music listening, but there are other markets where it is a big deal, like gaming.
  11. If they are smart, they are considering all options, driven by customer feedback. If nobody uses included headphones, why include them? If lots of people do, then invest in making them better. They better care either way… delivering customer “wants”, in the long run, divides the winner from the losers in business. Some people do want a detector to include good headphones. Personally, I use and appreciate both the ML80 and ML100. My other headphones have effectively been retired. Others say they are no good, and a waste of development time and money best used on the detectors themselves. Personally, while I think the general audio market is moving to an aftermarket headphone standard (think Apple phone no longer including anything), there is something to be said for being able to buy a detector in a box with everything you need. I was out park detecting yesterday, and grabbed my four year old prototype ML80s, getting pretty beat up, but still working fine for me. I prefer the ML100 for nugget detecting, but am vain enough to not want to look like Mickey Mouse in a park, so go the ML80 for a lower profile look. I’m weird on audio I guess. I insist on running full tones and hot for max audio feedback, but I’m not terribly picky on how the audio gets to my ear. A poster mentioned how people using the external speaker are missing 20% of finds. I disagree. If I can hear the threshold, I can hear it, whether it’s via headphone or speaker. When I’m in a quiet location, I more and more am using the built in speaker, and with GPX 6000 it gets used a lot. My main complaint is when I get on ground waving scoop over coil, now the speaker is well behind me, so harder to hear. And it does reduce battery run time. But while detecting my ear is as fixed on that threshold either way, headphone or external speaker, and I’m confident I’m not losing 20% of my gold by using the external speaker. That’s just a made up number with zero evidence to back it up. Then again, I’d agree headphones is the superior way to go as a general rule, and will never argue with somebody insisting on using headphones all the time. Just be careful about getting all superior about it. Park detecting, it’s as much about keeping others from not hearing my detector, as it is about me hearing it. I always use headphones even in a quiet park location for that very reason. Overall I still employ headphones most of the time, but the 6000 did change my past insistence on always using headphones. I know JP hates the external speaker, and much gets made of how it causes EMI issues, etc. For some reason I’m happily using mine sans headphones, and quite enjoying it. Go figure. I think the 6000 for me became freedom, freedom from harness, bungees, power cords, covers, and yes, even headphones. Just grab and go…. I love it!
  12. I was signed up to be a trainer for them, but then they booted me and the rest of the old timers. You know…. the people that actually do this stuff for real. That being the case, I’ll reserve my opinions on the current cast and crew. Let’s just say you have better options, some of them members of this forum.
  13. I've not completely given up hope on First Texas, though I have mentally put this into the "next year" category. I'm fortunate to have many detecting interests, and other detectors, to keep me plenty busy. And frankly I'm well past the "waiting for new detectors" stage of my life. I'm amazed at the power I have now, compared to my first White's Coinmaster 4 in 1974. An old TR, no ground balance, no discrimination. By comparison we have vastly more detecting power at our fingertips, and frankly, we have hit a bit of a wall in performance. It's not like the Impulse will radically change anything. As far as I'm concerned it's just a finely tuned TDI in a better package. So while I'll be very pleased if First Texas finally gets it out the door made right, it's not like it's some long awaited Holy Grail of detecting. I'm talking full PI depth with true discrimination. That machine has yet to be made. So sit back, relax, and wait a while. After all this time and wait, First Texas may as well take all the extra time needed to get the machine completely right. They really can't afford, after all this, to release a detector that is not problem free. I was happy with how my Impulse performed for me on my locations, and simply want the detector to be made more reliable, and in a proper physical package. Despite what in my view has been a very botched process, I still wish First Texas success in getting this and other new detector models to market. No more ancient models with new coats of paint, please.
  14. There is no doubt finds can be made beach detecting that are extremely valuable, but unfortunately they are in the same class as one pound plus gold nuggets. Which I know you have also found Gerry! Still, any nugget hunters who doubt what a good beach hunter at good locations can find, should visit Gary Drayton's website. Gary’s most famous find is the magnificent Spanish 1715 fleet emerald treasure ring that he found on the beach opposite the wreck site of the Spanish galleon “Nuestra senora de las nieves.” The ship wrecked on July 31st 1715 during the hurricane that destroyed the Spanish treasure fleet. The treasure ring is made from 22.5 karat Inca gold and set with nine near flawless Colombian emeralds, and is worth an estimated $500,000.00.
  15. SDC is easy to learn, and a bit of a small gold vacuum in the right hands. But for overall use, I’d pick 4500 every time for versatility, and it will slay a SDC for depth on large gold, simply due to the large coils it can run. Yeah there is more to learn, but it’s not hard for anyone that will make a small effort. Out of box settings are easy and very good, just the tweaks that take extra effort.
  16. I did very well at Alaska fresh water swimming holes. Unfortunately, saltwater swimming is non-existent up north, and the fresh water locations can be counted on both hands, and are very small areas. They have long since been cleaned of the majority of the accumulated jewelry, though finds are still made of course. I found the rings in this photo on one of my last Alaska lake outings….
  17. Seems my idea went somewhere after all, the new Geo-Sense on GPX 6000!
  18. Good job Chris. It's always tempting to go back to old sites, as we know there is gold there. Hunting for new patches often means no gold at all. Yet sooner or later the old patches are providing nothing but leftovers. The only way to really score then, is to seek out new locations. It's always a tough go, often with poor or no results, but is the only way to produce results like you have displayed here. Then the time invested is made worthwhile. Thanks for sharing, and helping provide that inspiration for others to leave the beaten path.
  19. These poll results will be seen at Minelab, in hope of guiding future product development. Please take the poll seriously, and if you wish, provide extra commentary via the posts section. This poll is designed to reveal how owners of the Minelab Equinox, Vanquish Pro Pack, and GPX 6000 are using, or not using, the included ML80 and ML100 headphones. Please, only owners of these models should respond to the poll directly, though others are welcome to add commentary via posts. Again, I request you take the poll seriously, and think about answers or commentary provided, as reflecting on the quality of forum membership. Thank you for your time and responses.
  20. Great job, thanks for sharing! If things get too complicated, and a person gets lost in the settings, here is a Beginner's Guide to Tuning the Minelab GPX 5000
  21. Prime specimen gold can go for $7000 - $9000 an ounce or more. Granted, that's not ten times market value, but it's not bad either. In general though I agree that for the average person, jewelry makes more sense. Gold prospecting is a profession in itself, with metal detectors simply being one of many tools. Anyone can buy a nugget detector, but that in no way means they will be successful at nugget detecting. It's probably the one area of detecting where the smallest percentage of detectorists is making the largest percentage of finds.
  22. Location more than anything. You live in Florida, it’s jewelry. Arizona, gold nuggets. West coast - just depends which you prefer, nuggets or the beach. I will say that I always thought the nugget patches would deplete to the point where I’d switch to jewelry detecting, which replenishes. That theory has been fading, as the best beach areas are where old decades long accumulated ring losses are recovered. A good storm that removes sand exposes rings lost over many years. However, those ring “patches” are also getting leaner with time, as detectorists are now cleaning beaches faster than losses are accumulating. The storm generated bonanzas are fading with time. It’s getting more about recent “drops”, and there are ever more detectorists competing for those recently dropped rings. The biggest unforeseen impact, however, is people simply not wearing jewelry like they did. It used to be if you got married, you got some nice rings. A plain gold band was the low end option. Now it’s tungsten and silicon carbide, and I’ve seen people wearing rings now that are no more than a fancy rubber band. Now you hear people saying they found 6 rings, but then you find half were basically junk jewelry. As far as I’m concerned, if it’s not gold, platinum, or at least silver, it just does not count. Long story short, my gold prospecting is still beating out my gold jewelry, but both areas are simply not what they used to be. The biggest factor is simple. When I started metal detecting almost 50 years ago, I never saw other people detecting. I was an oddball weirdo. Now the goldfields and beaches are crawling with detectorists. It makes it hard for a spoiled old timer like me to get as enthused as I used to be. Ounce of gold a day used to be a regular thing for me. Those days are very few and far between now. I can say that when I go nugget hunting, I always come home with gold. Always. It’s not hard for me to find a few small nuggets no matter what. It’s the quantity that’s getting harder. Gold rings, I get skunked a lot, so I do find gold prospecting more dependable, ring hunting more hit and miss. Another factor I’ll mention though is logistics. I can ring hunt as near as the nearest park. Nugget detecting is far more time and logistics intensive, often requiring overnight, or multi day outings. There are still good out of the way places for finding gold nuggets. Florida beaches? People live an hour away, and every beach has a full time crew hitting the beach every single morning. I do feel like I can seek out and make a major gold strike still, an undiscovered, virgin nugget location that puts many ounces of gold in my pocket. There are almost endless possibilities, and I’ve got lists in my head of places I’ve never been yet. You are not going to go out and discover a new, unknown beach. There are also still pound plus nuggets out there. In that regard, for the true gold prospectors, nugget detecting still has the best shot at major finds over beach detecting. It now looks to me like I’ll be chasing gold nuggets more than rings, for as long as I can keep detecting. It’s the better option for me at least, based on both my location, and my decades of experience at gold prospecting.
  23. I know you know your stuff Jeff… that’s why I pay attention to your posts! You are a very demanding user in an area with extreme mineralization, and I am not surprised at all by your commentary. It’s what I’d expect for the conditions you face. A better comparison performance wise might be the White’s DFX, another mild mannered multi that did not obsolete single frequency detectors. Even BBS and FBS I took a pass on in extreme mineral ground, actually preferring single frequency. Equinox set the bar high in that regard, and people have already forgotten that multi does not always mean maximum performance. Just like you have different levels of single frequency performance, there are different levels of multi performance. Anyone not testing an Apex on a saltwater beach is missing a big part of the equation here. I’m pleased with the Apex as a first effort from Garrett, and I think they placed it where it is in their lineup for all the reasons you mentioned. It was not marketed as an Equinox equal, and expecting it to be that is expecting too much. It obviously can suit people well for it’s intended uses, as attested to here by other users. I think it does offer a great alternative to other detectors in its price range, and look forward to seeing what Garrett can do with a higher end version of the machine.
  • Create New...