Steve Herschbach

Then there is metal detecting in tailing piles. I made a trip to Ganes Creek, Alaska with three other people and we spent three days. The tailing piles have been mined several times and mixed up multiple ways. Gold, gravel, and trash is randomly mixed and scattered. We would all walk up to a huge pile of tailings material. We would randomly choose sections to detect. I would walk right into my section and bang a one ounce nugget. We would then all furiously hunt some more but little or no gold would be found. We would move to another pile. Same scenario would repeat. By the middle of the second day I was actually apologizing. It was just too weird. I wanted my friends to find gold also, but I seemed to have a near corner on that activity for the weekend. But at the end of three days I had over a pound of gold, the other three had a couple ounces among them. Now, I like to think I know what I am doing, that I have skill and knowledge, and that I work hard at what I do. But there is no doubt in my mind that weekend I was just plain lucky.

Common sense folks. If you are going to metal detect on somebody elses mining claim having permission from the claim owner only makes sense. Explaining in advance your intent and getting agreement that all parties are clear on what is going on can help prevent conflict from occurring. If on public land open to mineral entry you are working under the mining laws and metal detecting for gold is specifically allowed as an activity under current regulations. Mineral entry means land open for claim staking. If the land is closed to mineral entry you are not covered under the mining laws. Rest assured that land managers have broad discretion under the law to protect archaeological resources on public lands. What constitutes an archaeological resource is also open to broad interpretation. The 1906 Antiquities Act has long since been bolstered by newer laws like ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) and others. 100 years is an old guideline. Many states are now using 50 year. Do a Google on "archaeological resource 50 years" In general coins have been regarded as exempt because they are legal tender, but arguments can be made about coins "found in context" and their importance for dating a site. The problem as has been pointed out is that while you may ultimately be legally correct the costs involved with even a wrongful run in with the law in these matters can be extreme. Relic hunting is the one type of metal detecting I do not participate in on public land. By definition if it is old enough for it to be of interest it is probably illegal to remove it from public land. Even on private property you need express written permission from the property owner. http://openjurist.org/999/f2d/1112/united-states-v-j-gerber

You are welcome. Your questions were not dumb. Gold prospecting is difficult and takes more horsepower than normal detecting. That is why quite a few people are now swinging a $10,000 gold prospecting detector! Basic VLF prospecting performance starts at $500. The best I could recommend for under $300 would be a used Fisher Gold Bug Standard (same as Pro less manual ground balance but with ground grab function).

All good stuff. Choices like this need not be one or the other. The White's V3i is probably the best example. There is a default icon based simple menu that does what the 90% wants. There is an extremely deep advanced menu that can be accessed separately and set as the default menu if desired. Not a big deal. The diagnostics idea is great.

I so far would have to say that for my own personal use the new Garrett AT Pinpointer is the best I have ever used.

Always except when in non-metal tennis shoes. Keeping that rod shortened up makes a huge ergonomic difference and in my case makes me slow down and work more carefully. I am determined to just take it slower and more methodically with the GPZ.

Some dealers have outings on a regular basis where a person can give a detector a spin.

A good friend of mine says it is better to be lucky than be good. There is a kernel of truth in there because when my luck is down I may as well stay home. Sometimes it is as random as whether you go left and your buddy goes right. But good pays off in the long run.

Welcome to the forum Peter. Attracting good people is a main goal here. Thank you for joining and contributing. There is only one active forum here on purpose - you always know the right place to start a thread!

Hi Chris, I saw that but was hoping more information would come to light.

Hi Clark, Nice report, thanks. It is always a tough go starting out. I went literally years between first turning on a metal detector to find a nugget and actually finding one. So do not be discouraged at all and just hang in there. It will happen! Main thing is just keep putting in the time in productive areas.

Great ideas and I am sure more will follow when more people have time to use the GPZ for awhile. Do consider one thing however. A design goal with the GPZ was to make it simpler than the GPX and the settings were kept to a minimum on purpose. A solution for this might be a simple menu, and then a secondary "advanced menu".

It depends. If hunting in Australia, follow me. If Ganes Creek, Alaska, follow JP. Do not underestimate the home team advantage! JP has forgot more about PI than I know. VLF in tailing piles I reckon I might be a bit quicker on the draw than JP. Same applies most everywhere. The locals always have an advantage in knowing the ground and target conditions, whether it is coins, relics, beach hunting, or gold. I am not really super efficient. It is doubtful my detector is always tuned for maximum performance. I have probably left more gold in the ground in the last 40 years than many people will find. I just try to make up for it with hard work and long hours.

Nice stuff Russ, thanks for posting! Funny thing about all the GPZ doubters but if they just read what JP, Chris and I posted and actually believed us they would not need to keep going on and on about getting "honest reviews". Apparently a person can only be deemed honest if they trash the GPZ. They praise the poor reviews as honest and doubt the good ones as resulting from hidden motives. The unit actually does perform. Maybe not as well as wishful thinking would like but it does take it up a notch.

The booster serves for me more as a master volume control and takes the load off the module when using separate external speakers. I still really have not figured out which audio setup I prefer most. Last time out I simply put the wireless module on my shoulder and was happy. There is something to be said for simplicity.

I have been fighting cramping in my legs that no amount of water or bananas seems to alleviate so I may have to give the potassium pills a go.

Hi klunker, thanks for the post. I appreciate your honest appraisal. The quote is "up to 40%" not 40% across the board. There is a huge difference, but I agree it is causing issues because people keep expecting 40% across the board. "Up to" covers a lot of ground and all Minelab has to do is prove exactly one instance where 40% is true to be covered. No problem from what I have seen and in fact I think I could make an "up to" claim far greater than 40% to really throw some petro on the fire! It will not matter in the long run. The performance is what it is, and all I need is an edge. That, I am convinced, the GPZ does deliver.

I was stuck on headphones so much that when I visited Australia JP could not convince me to go to external speakers. I finally did two summers ago and I have to admit that when in bear and snake country it is nice being able to hear what is going on around me! The fun part about making the original post is despite everything said I do not for one second regret selling my GPX 5000 and related gear and going with the GPZ. The more I use it the more I like it.

My vote is for an 8" x 11" coil. I want the hots of the 8" but I am not quite willing to give up the ground coverage. My second place vote if a new housing is not in the offing is the 8" round. I need the small coil for nooks and crannies in rough brushy terrain. I also think using a small coil in conjunction with the smaller CTX battery will make the detector lighter which will also help in uneven terrain.

I think I can promise that Minelab is watching this forum carefully for helpful feedback regarding the GPZ 7000. Once a few more people have one I will start a general suggestions thread that will address general upgrade requests, especially as regards the software. The hardware is not likely to change much. The most immediate thing I am sure Minelab is working on is the coils What one or no more than two coil sizes do you want the most? We need it to be focused so big lists do not help. The main thing is to send a message now about what you want most. I can guarantee the people that matter will be watching what you say with great interest. Some reason why you want the coil would be good also. Thank you!

The 80/20 thing for me is based on many years of watching detectorists with similar equipment at Ganes Creek and Moore Creek, Alaska so there is actual field observation to back it up. At my Moore Creek mine almost everyone used the latest Minelab gear. The novices were lucky to find any gold in a week, the experts found gold every day. That is not an exaggeration. I will post a compilation of results which we recorded weekly for several years plus some I have from Ganes Creek to illustrate when I have time. It is not that better equipment does not matter. Where equipment matters is when you eliminate the novices and only deal with experts. If I am in a hunt with a number of guys that really know their stuff, I will if possible use better gear than they have. However, that does not always mean what you think. Sometimes that means breaking out the Gold Bug 2 when everyone else is running a PI. That again is where the skill and knowledge thing kicks in. Operator skill being equal better detectors do matter. But the difference between what an expert prospector/detectorist can do versus the run of the mill types is stunning. I have seen it in action way too often to have any doubt at all in that matter.

An 11" coil was mentioned in the draft manual but that mention was dropped from the final manual, as was mention of the 20" coil. The actual size of the accessory coils has yet to be determined. My vote was for an 8" x 11" semi-elliptical.

The Cibola is a 14 kHz detector. The operating frequency can be shifted between 14.3 kHz, 14.5 kHz, and 14.7 kHz to help eliminate electrical interference. The Cibola is a fine detector suitable for most uses but nugget detecting is last on the list due to the lack of ground balance option. The ground balance is preset internally for average ground conditions. This means it cannot be adjusted for the more adverse ground conditions found in any gold bearing locations. It does not mean you cannot find a gold nugget with it, just that it is its weakest area of operation. You have to start someplace and you have made a good choice in a beginners detector. For nugget detecting basic capability starts at a higher price tag.

The user base for SD/GP/GPX detectors is huge and so a new coil has potential for selling well. The GPZ is just too new and too few in numbers to attract third party interest. That, and just about anyone can make a PI coil. I suspect the GPZ coils are an order of magnitude more difficult to produce. Don't hold your breath for aftermarket coils. The good news with the GPZ is that by the nature of the way it works a pile of coils is not needed. One smaller coil and one larger coil and I will be happy. In fact it really is just the smaller one I am wanting. I would have to think hard about hanging even more weight off the front of the GPZ. The Aussies though I assume really want that large coil.

No but I have some Gold Basin meteorites Jim Straight gave me. I will dig them out and try them on the GPZ on Monday.