Steve Herschbach

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.

Just goes to show I have really wimped up since I left Alaska!!

The power of Google. Helps that I researched it all long ago also so I know what to search for.

Really great commentary root, thanks!! Arizona Lode Gold Mines and Gold Mining Geology of Lode Gold Districts in the Klamath Mountains, California and Oregon

Mud Men: Pocket Miners of Southwest Oregon—Part I by Tom Bohmker (free) More ICMJ Articles by Tom Bohmker (subscription required) George Duffy Jr.—Pocket Miner Extraordinaire by Jim Straight (subscription required) And just found this, new in 2015, a bit on the heavy side but good tidbits and the price is right AN INTRODUCTION TO GEOLOGY AND HARD ROCK MINING 2015 By Dr. Willard Lacy

Pretty dicey in Northern Nevada right now. Not saying it can't be done but brrrr! I am here and if I wanted to do it bad enough at the moment I would be heading over the hill to foothills in Northern California or better yet to Arizona or Southern California. Instead I am just working on website and cleaning house/selling stuff which requires me to stay put for awhile. The most I am doing right now is hitting a park or two if the weather warms up enough to suit me, which right now would be anything over 50. Right now Reno is running more in the 30s and 40s for highs.

OK, another great spot to look for silver coins is of course older school grounds. Here are the construction dates for all schools in the Anchorage School District.

The CTX does not use normal subtractive ground balancing methods but instead uses methodologies more akin to those employed in pulse induction machines. A frequency domain detector employing time domain methods if you will. I found its default operating modes with a little extra gain applied to be most effective for me. All I know is it and it's kin are some of the deadliest silver turf hunting machines ever designed as evidenced by the success of the BBS and FBS detectors worldwide, and no slouch on the beaches either. I do little turf hunting these days and at the moment had little use for my CTX, so since mine just ran out of warranty I figured I would sell it and hold out for the next version, whenever that may be. I would miss it if I were not so busy focusing on other detectors and detecting tasks at this time.

The relic hunters are liking this machine as well as the nugget hunters http://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,95323

They would not want to do that. I guess it would be more accurate to say I would not be interested.Tom, resistivity is covered in the link I posted above and will post here again. Anything in this report I would consider legit. I would question anything that is not. Just my opinion. Self Potential Method HANDBOOK OF GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING METHODS FOR THE ALASKAN PROSPECTOR http://pubs.dggsalaskagov.us/webpubs/mirl/report_no/text/mirl_n19.pdf

"11 grams of golden beauty. My biggest this year." Very nice and just in time with the year coming to an end. Though I guess it is prime time down your way - go find one even larger!

They were available to me as a dealer back in the day but no, I never laid hands on one.

Why thank you Rob. Merry Christmas to you and yours and all the fine people of this forum!

Subject for another thread but yes, alloys will often be of lower conductivity than pure metals. Gold alloys are dramatically less conductive than pure gold for instance. And on detectors size is every bit as important as conductivity. VDI numbers really only have meaning for repeatable items, like a dime, and even then only under favorable conditions.

I always advise hunting urban areas as much as possible when nobody is around. It pays to stay as invisible as possible and so I hunt at oddball times or in bad weather. Having gear that does not attract attention is a good idea also. For those that want to walk or ride a bicycle to nearby locations having a machine that easily folds and fits into a day pack is also very nice.

If you are into technical stuff the best source of information is not this forum but Geotech. They have great tech articles plus a tech forum. Geotech Articles GeotechProjects - coils near bottom Geotech Forum Geotech Article On Coil Basics