Steve Herschbach

Just in time for Christmas, the new eighth edition of Jim Straights Follow The Drywashers "The Nuggetshooter's Bible" is now available. This book has a new binder, new cover and an additional 30-40 pages of information. First seen on Rob's forum at http://forums.nuggethunting.com/index.php?/topic/11756-jim-straights-new-nuggetshooters-bible-new-edition-volume-8/

They can just stop making metal detectors today and I am well covered. The main thing that will make more finds for me is more time spent detecting, not more detectors. But Santa Steve just loves new toys!

Bummer. Oh well, it really is kind of moot at this point. People's views on it all are colored of course by their own experiences with the GPZ. By and large everyone has made up their mind one way or the other and there seems to be but little discussion of the GPZ these days on most other forums I visit.

Hard to argue with that though there are a lot of bright young guys out there now we have not heard of. I think a factor of key importance to consumers in all this is the rapidly increasing competition developing on prices. My gut feeling is we have seen a high water mark reached with the GPZ 7000 in more ways than one. Witness the recent moves Minelab has made with various low price packages on GPX detectors. With gold prices declining and likely to break under US$1000 in the coming year the prospecting detector market is getting saturated. Everyone that needs one has one and fewer new people getting into it now, especially as it gets hard for even the pros to find much gold. The overseas markets have wised up to the fact you don't have to spend a fortune to find gold. I think going forward bang for the buck and ergonomics are going to rule the market. Minelab in particular is going to face serious pressure on detector prices going forward - in my opinion. On the other hand - how much would a person pay for a GPZ with reliably accurate iron discrimination?

OK, they say 2016 and that is right around the corner. CZX - Fisher and Teknetics This machine is ground breaking technology Turn on and go 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly. First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil. From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available. Target release 2016 We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project This machine would take the Africa market by storm by being turn on and go. The relic hunters in Virginia and elsewhere should like it. If weight and balance are right, I am going to love it as I have been pounding the table for a machine like this for years. I would like to see something with at least Minelab SD type performance in a light weight affordable package but at $1000 it simply needs to beat the TDI. The biggest question I have is how small a nugget can it detect? At $1000 this machine would be the natural next step up for any prospector using a VLF who has not made the plunge into PI. The old CZ is dual frequency running at 15 kHz and 5 kHz, a 3:1 ratio. Staying at 5 for the low end a 9:1 ratio figures at 45 kHz and 5 kHz. Until recently a machine with no ground balance adjustment would have raised eyebrows, but the SDC 2300 has laid that concern to rest. Dave Johnson always likes power combined with simplicity and good ergonomics, and that bodes well for this detector. The "Mosca" model looks to be aiming mid-way between the Garrett AT Pro and Minelab CTX 3030 with a multi-frequency all terrain model. The AT Pro has been wildly successful and it only makes sense to emulate that success. Anyway, this is the one I want to see in 2016. I guess I had better get my lightweight ATX project completed before this makes it obsolete. Now I know how detector companies feel about project delays!

2016 ICMJ Mining Summit Saturday & Sunday, April 16-17, 2016 Featuring 20,000 sq. ft. packed with the latest in mining and prospecting equipment & expert instruction from our writers and staff Learn everything from gold panning, basic prospecting, and metal detecting for gold on up to advanced gold recovery and small operations Dates: Saturday & Sunday, April 16-17, 2016 Parking: The Fairgrounds Association charges $5 per vehicle per day. Venue: El Dorado County Fairgrounds 100 Placerville Dr Placerville, CA 95667 Admission: $5 at the door per day; children under 12 are free with a paid adult. Food and drinks will be available for purchase inside. Show Hours: 10am - 5pm Saturday 10am - 4pm Sunday Scavenger Hunt: Kids can participate in a FREE scavenger hunt to earn prizes. Here's what you need to know right now: October 2015: Begin taking booth reservations from current advertisers. December 2015: Open booth reservations to non-advertisers if there are any spots remaining. January 4, 2016: Registration for hands-on classes opens. April 15, 2016: Hands-on training class (placer mining). Exhibitor set up day. April 16-17, 2016: Show, exhibits, lectures at Placerville (El Dorado County) Fairgrounds, in Placerville, California. April 18, 2016: Hands-on training class (placer mining). Introduction to underground (lode) mining class. Updates, lecture schedules, and related information will be published in ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal beginning with the October 2015 issue. I look forward to seeing you there. Scott Scott Harn Editor/Publisher ICMJ's Prospecting & Mining Journal PO Box 2260, Aptos, CA 95001 PHONE (831) 479-1500 • FAX (831) 479-4385 More information at http://www.icmj.com/miningsummit.php

Oh heck goldenoldie, let it rip! You won't hurt anyone's feelings. Hand holding nuggets in an open hole in the side of an open pit is nothing more than an attempt to do some tests not unlike burying test targets. Certainly not the same as in place nuggets found in the wild. We get to see but little of what they were doing and what the tests really were and where they fit in the overall picture however. I have to admit I am just making an assumption that what we see in the video is connected with the charts in some way, but I have no knowledge that is true or not. Just an assumption on my part. Critical thinking is a good thing!

He is talking about the one in the video I reference farther back up in the thread. The pit where Minelab did some of the GPZ testing, two minutes into the video.

Anybody else been using these since Jason first posted his video?

I did well in Hawaii with the various Surf PI models but they can bang on basalt cobbles. The older Surfs I think were actually better in that regard as not being quite as hot as the Surf Dual. The ATX finally fixed all that for me, but it is only good to 10 feet like the CTX. There is a guy successfully beefing up the CTX for scuba diving and doing well with it at http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/minelab/447583-make-real-waterproof-ctx-3030-scuba-diving-experience.html I have to admit I am too chicken to do that with a $2K detector but it is an option. The only time I ever really put an Excalibur to use was in Hawaii. The problem I had is it was gutless on the basalt and the tones were rather useless, so I felt better just running it in all metal (no tones) mode. The Excalibur is odd in that whatever the last tone was becomes the threshold tone until a new target is found, which changes the tone again. It takes some getting used to and would normally be ok but in the basalt it was just all over the place. There is no notching, just tones, and so going with no tones I basically had a gutless PI. I did find an 18K gold band with it but rapidly went back to the Infinium I was also using at that time. The Infinium would be the cats meow if it did not false so much in salt water. The ATX fixed that but again, only good to 10 feet. I don't want to make the Excalibur sound bad. It is probably the most successful salt water machine ever made. It is just that Hawaii is as tough as it gets what with the salt water, basalt volcanics, and military grade EMI. I wish Garrett had an ATX good for depth or Minelab a CTX good for depth. In your situation maybe just pick up a used Excal for the trip and sell it when you get back? Nice finds! I do love the beach hunting.

Sorry about that goldenoldie, I should have sent you a message telling you I split the thread. Seemed like it deserved more attention and would not have got it under the old heading. Well, as they say "your mileage may vary". Nothing works perfectly for everyone everywhere and the GPZ is no different.

Well, it would seem the GPZ has in general been a real hit in the U.S. based on the number of people I know that are using it. Harder to say about Oz, I get the feeling more of a mixed result there. It looks like the GPZ does favor milder ground where it can be run flat out. It may not really come into its own in Australia until the fabled larger coil becomes available.

In my opinion the Gold Racer is first and foremost a gold machine. Gold nuggets and gold jewelry. Focusing on low conductors is what it is all about. One reason I want a turn down from top disc control is to eliminate steel that wraps high, and the silver coins can go right out the door with it if need be. Merton, basically the Gold Racer is not all that different than a Racer, just hotter on tiny stuff. My guess is also hotter on flat tinny steel. Personally I am just not seeing it as the relic hunting solution for anyone but hard core guys like Keith, at least until somebody like him can prove otherwise. Guys, first adopters are taking a risk. If you have any doubts, just sit back and let others sort it out! If I seem cautious it is because even though I am one of the guys reporting on the Makro Gold Racer I just don't put a lot of store personally in reports from one or two people. For a machine to really prove itself it has to get out in the hands of a lot of people under widely varying conditions over time for that final thumbs up to happen. So while I am convinced that this is a very good detector for me personally it is just too soon to say how it will play out overall. Compared to the GMT and Gold Bug 2 this is a machine with a multitude of features that have never been attempted in a high frequency detector and for that reason alone I find the machine intriguing. The Gold Racer is best used in its very stable and easy operating all metal mode. There should be no problem mastering this mode as it is a very well behaved machine in all metal, all while having the benefit of on screen target id. Most ferrous locks on hard at 20 or 21, and I mean locks on hard. Unreliable target id numbers should always be dug until you get more familiar with the machine. A real beauty of having target id is that unlike the GMT or Gold Bug 2 certain pesky items like 22 shell casings or many hot rocks can be identified and ignored if so desired. Where the machine can be more challenging to operate is the discrimination modes due to its extremely hot high gain, high frequency design. In some areas it runs clean and smooth, but in most locations the disc modes can be rather chatty with transient blips, not unlike a Gold Bug 2 in iron disc mode cranked to the max in a trashy location. The trick is to learn the clipped sounds should be ignored while the fuller good signals should be investigated. There are however a multitude of setting combinations that interact in disc mode and I would be a liar if I said I have mastered the Gold Racer in disc mode. This really is a great detector in my opinion but it is a very high performance machine pushing to the limits, and so not exactly a beginners machine in that regard. All metal mode is easy to master, but the disc modes are more challenging than what one will encounter on lower frequency detectors. It is worth the effort for me however as this machine will do things that simply can't be done with a GMT or Gold Bug 2. I am using it now around town as a jewelry machine and it is a tot lot killer if there ever was one. Same old story everyone. It is just a metal detector, not a magic wand, and getting hopes too high just leads to inevitable let down.

Finally, at least some of the GPZ comparative testing was done in a test pit as shown in this video starting at the two minute mark. Anyway, there is all I know on that subject, people can draw their own conclusions and judge this all on what time has revealed as fact in the field. I guess I am way too jaded from my years in sales to see anything but the words "up to" and so I know what I am seeing in the field clearly fits into at least that category. In fact I can say I have seen performance from my GPZ on the order of several hundred percent better than a GPX on certain specimen gold. Others no doubt feel otherwise.

From Basics Of GPZ 7000 Technology: Zero Voltage Technology (ZVT) page 3 Performance advantage of the GPZ 7000 To measure the performance of any detector depends on many factors, such as: particular detector settings, coil size and configuration, ground type, mineralisation levels and type, electromagnetic interference, gold nugget size and composition, and of course, operator skill. Figure 3 shows the percentage increase in depth of a GPZ 7000 compared to the GPX 5000, using the same sized coils (14‐inch). This data was obtained at several different soil locations and conditions in Australia. For these measurements: • A GPX 5000 using a Monoloop with Fine/Enhance timings is used when testing in (highly) mineralised soils. • A GPX 5000 using a Double‐D with either Normal or Sharp, whichever gives the best depth for each nugget tested (referred to as ‘GPX 5000 Normal’), is compared to the GPZ 7000 Difficult + General in moderately mineralised soils. • The GPZ 7000 General is compared to the GPX 5000 Sharp or Normal (again referred to as ‘GPX 5000 Normal’) using a monoloop in moderately mineralised soils. Here the vertical Y‐axis is the percent advantage, and the horizontal X‐axis from left to right, is for a steadily decreasing mass of the nugget tested, going from number 1 being for a 20 ounce nugget, to number 30 for a 0.13 gram nugget. The X‐axis is not drawn to any scale, merely listing nuggets that were available for testing in decreasing weight order. The depth advantages of nugget numbers above 30, (30–35 being between 0.13 and 0.05g) are off scale; above 60%, and thus not shown on this graph. The reason why the data is so scattered is because the two different technologies respond differently to how fast the eddy currents change; due to different Time Constants (TC). The Time Constants vary considerably between nuggets even if they have the same mass; that is, whilst the X‐axis list decreasing nugget mass, this does not necessarily correspond to continually decreasing Time Constant. As can be seen, the depth advantage varies considerably from nugget to nugget, and setting to setting, but the general advantage of ZVT is clear; mostly distributed between 0–40% improvement, and even more.

Well, let's take a look.... UP TO 40%* and UP TO 30%* and UP TO 40%* *When compared to the average performance of the GPX 5000 in typical environments. Actual performance depends on prevailing conditions. The information displayed in this graph is an out-of-the-box comparison, is indicative only, and is based on the results of laboratory measurements and field testing undertaken by, and for, Minelab using a GPX 5000 with the 11" Monoloop coil, an SDC 2300 with attached 8" Monoloop coil and a GPZ 7000 with the GPZ 14 Super-D coil.The nominal performance for GPX 5000 with the 11" Monoloop coil is used as the baseline for comparison of the other detectors. The performance of the GPX 5000 on larger nuggets with a larger comparable accessory 15" x 12" Monoloop coil is also depicted. Note that a GPZ 7000 with a GPZ 14 coil will also typically further outperform a GPX 5000 with larger accessory coils on small and medium nuggets. Please be aware that the depicted results give a relative and realistic comparison of the three detectors for typical goldfields conditions for detecting the weight ranges of gold shown, but do not represent performance under all conditions, and should not be regarded as conclusive. Minelab does not warrant or represent that the performance levels depicted will actually be achieved, as performance of the three detectors will vary depending upon prevailing conditions. relevant factors in detector performance include, but are not limited to, detector settings, coil size and configuration, ground type, mineralization levels and type, electromagnetic interference, gold nuggets size, shape and composition, and operator skill level.

Well, with 2016 right around the corner here is my latest update. First Texas (Fisher, Teknetics). Last year I said I would not be surprised if the new Fisher units slipped into 2016 so no surprise there. I think it is all but guaranteed we will see these units in 2016. The Fisher CZX and "Mosca" platform are perhaps my most anticipated and looked for detectors in 2016. Given that Dave Johnson and Carl Moreland are involved I think this will be big. Garrett. I just do not know. They are way, way overdue for a new top end machine to replace the GTI 2500. It came out in 1999 and it is hard for me to believe they have not come out with anything to replace it in all these years. I also keep hoping for a ATX built from the ground up for desert prospecting. I have no expectations from Garrett specifically but their last VLF introduction was the AT Gold in 2011 so they are due for a refresh at this point. I am cautiously optimistic we will see something new from Garrett in 2016. Minelab. Let's face it, 2015 was the big year for Minelab. The most I am hoping for in 2016 is a GPZ accessory coil. Tesoro. They become less relevant with each passing year. White's. White's really, really needs to do something. They are a sealed black box and I have nothing to go on but some impressive patents filed the last few years. They lost a lot of old timers and there are lots of new people there so who the heck knows what might happen. All I do know is they went from top of the heap to looking sort of lost these days, and I think they need a real home run this year. They are kind of cruising on past reputation at this point, and releasing the widely panned Treasuremaster and TreasurePro has done nothing to help them. A well executed flagship machine could once again paint them as a leader in the industry, and a failed release could make them a target for a buyout. If there is a company I feel is at a tipping point, it is White's. XP. The Version 4 update of the DEUS is assured in 2016, just a matter of when. It is not quite what many were hoping for, which was a true multi-frequency option, but the V4 update certainly got my attention, enough to make me buy a new DEUS. In that respect it has already succeeded. Nokta/Makro. The new kids on the block, taking the position relinquished without a fight by Tesoro, is Nokta/Makro. Despite recent releases all the buzz seems to be on the new Impact model under development. The Impact could really have a big impact by taking Nokta/Makro out of the realm of producing niche machines with something that seems clearly targeted at being a flagship type model appropriate for multiple uses and markets. I think it is very important that the company take the time to get this one completely right in every detail, with no chance of any embarrassing quality control issues arising. What I perceive right now with Nokta/Makro is a company moving aggressively fast by executing a rapid feedback loop with customers. This has lead to some quality control issues that need to be stamped out lest the companies develop a reputation for just that. A well executed flagship model that stands with the best offered by the big names could take Nokta/Makro to the next level. Given the importance of getting this one right I would not be surprised to see it slip into 2017 but a year is a long time and as fast as these folks move we could see it before the end of 2016. The Russian company AKA referenced above has entered my radar with some impressive looking models getting good reviews. With absolutely no representation in the US however they are still very much a fringe operator. Blisstool and Deeptech are ahead of them in that regard, but those companies also are niche players unheard of by most people. Blisstool in particular has some interesting technology some serious detectorists are giving a thumbs up, but the machines are retro in a way that is not going to attract a wide market. That is fine, there is always a place for niche machines and these new names by even making this discussion are making inroads. The competition is heating up worldwide and that can be nothing but good for the metal detecting public. 2016 looks to be a very interesting year with just the Fisher releases and the Deus V4 update more than enough to keep me busy.

I guess when in an information vacuum they had to start someplace but even for people unable to test the machines themselves there are more than enough operators using the various Minelab models under various conditions worldwide for one to draw some fairly good conclusions with Google and a lot of reading. No need to rely on marketing material at this point. The key words in all the Minelab comparison charts are "up to". Understanding that phrase and what it means in marketing terms is all a person really needs to know.

You don't have to. Having used all three I can draw my own conclusions and anyone else can do the same.

I sure am glad you posted that. Chris had me thinking maybe I am being too much of a wimp. Nope, I am really happy seeing pictures of you doing what I am not doing right now. I sure hope you dig a monster nugget Paul - you are earning it!

It is an episode from an Animal planet series I Shouldn't Be Alive at http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?p=290252&pa=sli which is why we can't see the episode here presumably. Synopsis: Lost in the Outback Amateur Treasure Hunter Theo is searching for gold in the vast Australian Outback. On his first vacation since life saving heart surgery, he takes a wrong turn, sending him into no mans land. Lost in the wilderness, he walks further and further away from safety, and the searchers who are desperate to find him before the dingoes make their move. In temperatures in excess of 100 degrees, without food, water or his vital medication, Theo faces the biggest battle of his life, a battle to stay alive. Transcript here if you want to read it instead of watch it http://www.allreadable.com/240eISRC Not doubt instructional although hard to get in real trouble with a camera crew following you around!

I am amazed how bad the roads in backcountry Nevada get when wet. I have scared myself silly a couple times and have vowed from now on to just stay put for as long as it takes for things to dry out. Chris' advice about having supplies for many days just in case is a good one. The gold will wait, and no use pushing it too hard. Right now wet weather is happening fairly regularly and the weather forecasts are poor at best. The weather is so localized rain can happen anywhere at almost any time it seems. For me day trips are too much time traveling and not enough time detecting so unless I have a week of good weather I just do not bother.

Yay, you made it! Sorry about that darn robot killer at sign up Nenad. It foils not only robots but a significant number of people, including me. It is not just you, believe me. But it did reduce my spammer rate from multiples per day to almost nothing so got forced to do it unfortunately. So welcome to the forum indeed!

First off, let me say welcome to the forum, and that I appreciate the effort you put into the video. So do not take the following personally because it is not aimed at you personally. It is just that perhaps with good intentions your video is doing something I see far too often. In my opinion air tests are completely worthless for evaluating in ground depth performance of metal detectors. In fact, in my opinion when used to draw conclusions between two detectors they can be extremely misleading and this video is a perfect example. Right in the beginning of the video the test is set up as seeing if for twice the money the X-Terra has any advantage over the Ace. Now, if you were just showing an air test of either machine separately all is well. It is the fact this is supposed to reveal how one compares to the other where it all falls apart. The rest of the video is simple misdirection. All the tests after that are air tests, ending with the conclusion that the Ace is just as good as the X-Terra that costs twice as much because it air tests as well. Now that is nonsense and you say as much when introducing your video in the post above. In your post you say "Now I am fully aware that metal detectors react differently when out in the field compared to in an air test environment and I also know that air test's aren't a true reflection of a detectors abilities". So why then make the video and in it not make those exact statements in it? Any person watching your video gets exactly the opposite impression. You imply heavily in the video itself that these air tests have meaning. Air tests only serve a few purposes in my opinion. They allow a person to learn basic things like what the target id numbers and sounds are for various items under perfect conditions, and they tell you what a detector will not do. If a detector cannot detect a small gold nugget in an air test, it is unlikely to do so in the ground. Air tests reveal maximum possible performance under ideal low to no mineral conditions. I do not expect detectors to do better in ground than in an air test. Air tests can reveal how well detectors deal with adjacent trash targets. Air tests can also reveal by comparing two of the exact same model of detector if one is possibly malfunctioning, but even then just because one air tests better than the other it may not mean what people think. It could be the one that air tests better is the one that is malfunctioning! Certain forums obsess over air tests. Yet I do in ground tests on a regular basis that completely reverse the air test results people are getting so excited over. A high frequency detector will often air test better than a low frequency or multifrequency detector, with opposite results in ground. A VLF can easily do better in air tests than a PI detector, with vastly opposite results in ground. The key to all detector performance is ground handling capability. Removing the ground from the equation removes the single most important thing people should care about, and that is evaluating the efficiency of the ground balancing method the detector employs. This ties into target id accuracy, which also can only be evaluated in ground. Target numbers that are nice and solid in air tests skew badly and jump all over the place in real ground conditions. In fact, I can easily misadjust a detectors ground balance to make it perform better in the air, while that very same adjustment will make it perform worse in the ground. I have seen people take detectors with factory preset ground balance settings, and attempt to get better performance by setting it themselves. They usually do so by using air tests to set the internal pot to get the best air test possible. They are then usually surprised to find out the in ground performance actually got worse. Well of course - you can only ground balance a detector over the ground! The ground balance setting that works best for mineralized ground will often hurt performance in an air test. That is why a Pulse Induction (PI) detector air tests so poorly compared to a VLF - a VLF has far less inherent ground handling capability than a PI and that ground handling capability is what a PI is all about. It does not make them air test well - BUT WHO METAL DETECTS IN THE AIR? Air test videos work best for people with low mineral ground, and so are halfway valid for turf hunters or white sand beach hunters. The guys back east love them. For nugget hunters or anyone hunting bad soil conditions, hopefully they know better. VLF detectors in my ground get about 50% of the depth or less than all these air tests that get published all over the place as meaning something. Machines that air test the best are often the absolute worst detectors to put in really bad ground conditions. Now to this video in particular. The Ace 250 is a factory preset ground balance detector. And in low mineral ground conditions your video is halfway valid. The Ace 250 in my opinion is one of the best bang for the buck detectors ever made, and a real credit to Garrett for having produced it. However, the simple lack of a ground balance control means that in bad ground it is seriously out of adjustment and there is nothing you can do about it. Depth of detection is severely impacted and target id accuracy is ruined. The X-Terra because it can be ground balanced easily outperforms the Ace in bad ground to a very large degree, the degree depending solely on the ground conditions. Further, the Ace lacks a true threshold based all metal mode, which mode on the X-Terra is one of the absolute best made. The X-Terra 705 Prospecting mode combined with its iron mask function truly puts the Ace to shame in the hands of a serious operator. Simply no comparison at all. Interestingly, in this video you have an optional 10" DD on the X-Terra vs the smaller concentric on the Ace. Another common error of course is comparing two detectors with vastly different coils. What is interesting in this case is that if compared with proper in ground tests you could show why that DD coil blows the Ace concentric coil away in any sort of bad ground. The concentric will overload more easily and misidentify non-ferrous items as ferrous more readily than the DD coil you have on the X-Terra. This DD advantage of course is completely lost in air tests and in fact concentric coils will usually outperform DD coils in air tests. The best videos are those that show a single detector and show a user how to get the best performance out of it. Nearly all the worst videos are those air testing two or more detectors seeking to determine which is best. Videos of that type must be done in the ground with a great deal of effort expended to explain the conditions and settings and also the inevitable caveats involved in the testing. The main caveats being actual ground conditions relative to where the actual end user is and what types of targets it is that they are seeking. I can show well why one detector perfect for Florida is a poor choice for Arizona, and also the exact opposite. It is all about the ground conditions where a person hunts and that changes from location to location. As far as I am concerned if people are interested in true detector comparisons the only ones that matter are in ground tests on found targets. That is how I test when I get serious about it. I use air tests and contrived buried item tests to reveal certain basic facts (can this detector detect a one grain nugget?) but for serious testing I have to haul two or more detectors into the field, go find targets, and compare the detectors on the found targets. Most top of the line detectors will find 90% plus of found targets just as well, so it takes a lot of time and effort to find the small percentage of targets that reveal true differences between the best detectors. And even then those results are only valid for me in my ground conditions and must be taken with a grain of salt.

All I can say is - freaking awesome! Merry Christmas for sure.