Tiftaaft

While I wait for availability of the 10x5 Coiltek, I decided to make myself feel better by constructing an interim solution.  

Good ergonomics, runs quiet and stable, great depth and separation.  Almost like it was designed in cooperation with the Equinox for optimal operation.  

😉

~Tim

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

The ring has the maker's mark and purity stamped on the outside?  Is that so the wearer can impress her friends? 

Yes. 😉

Just received and works great!  👍

7 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

I take it you've pulled all of that stack from the ground.  Doesn't a hole/depression remain where a brick was removed?

 

The area that the bricks are located is evidently an old dump area.  The ground is uneven to start with, and not covered with turf.  There sometimes is a depression where I removed the brick, but the ground is pretty easily leveled.  There are a bunch of broken bottles and other trash in this area as well.  I think they tore down the old school and just dumped the excess debris on the edge of the field into a shallow pit.  I would love to see what it the area looked like back in the "operation" years.  Now it is just a vacant field of wild grass and wild flowers that the city mows down every 3 to 4 weeks.  

As I continue to spend my after-dinner strolls to the old school grounds with detector(s) in tow, and finding a 3rd War Nickel in the process - I am hoping to complete the quest at this site with the last item (IHP).  Honestly, I am digging any repeatable tone at this point, but tend to get my hopes up when I see something in the high teens/low 20's (which are becoming more and more rare). 

Interestingly, old Texas Diamond red bricks give a solid 17-18 on the Equinox.  Having committed to the dig by the time I identify the brick (usually 7"+ deep), I decided to clear the discovered bricks in hopes they are covering a more desirable target below.  But alas, so far not the case.  

On a positive note, I am about 1/2 way to a nice brick shed for my detectors at this site haha :D. 

It is a very interesting thread GBA, and as you said different to each detectorist.  I know some turf hunters are dedicated to the silver count - or relics.  Beach hunters tally in terms of "rings" and some by only "gold rings" as the silver ones are "bling" haha.  Value, as you mentioned, is another measure.  To each their own.   

The comparison between silver dimes and gold by weight definitely puts things into perspective.  I have some work to do before matching a gold ozt in silver coins.

4 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

I actually wasn't suggesting you dig purely ferrous sounding targets (but it's your time ).  If I understood your post, three targets that the Coiltek 15" round indicated having non-ferrous possibilities but that the Eqx 12"x15" showed ferrous only tones all turned out to be ferrous.  If so, could that be either due to coil control or pinpointing accuracy (related properties)?  And did the extra weight of the Coiltek contribute to those (in a negative way)?  Three targets is a very small sample so I'm not suggesting we put much stock in these data.  More testing (and not just by you) will hopefully either clarify and possibly even refute.

Hey, sometimes a day of digging iron is what the ground gives you! (I have the rusty horseshoe and railroad spike from last week to prove it) 😄  

I agree, the sample size is too small to use as empirical data.  I hope I am wrong (most likely I am) as falsing on iron probably was well vetted by the CT team.

I was thinking that throwing in a few deep iron signals on each "pass" could identify how each coil treats a deep non-ferrous item is a good suggestion you made, especially if one ID'd as ferrous and the other as non-ferrous or vice-versa.  Of course there are always the variables of approach angle, swing angle, swing speed, and other man-made (at least this man) inconsistencies from one path to the next.  I will say that I have spent a lot of time (probably at least half of my total swing time) with the ML15 on the 800 since purchasing it... I know that machine and coil as well as any I have.  The CT "feels" different... just trying to figure out how to use that to my advantage.  👍

5 minutes ago, EL NINO77 said:

it's an excellent test of large coils ...... Tim..👍

Which explains a lot ... I think both coils are quite similar in detection .. according to me 15 "Coiltek can have an edge on many larger objects ... maybe in buckle size ...

Thanks El Nino!  For future tests and hunts I will try to get more adept at running my GoPro.  Interesting thought on larger items... I'll pay attention to that when I have them out again.  ~Tim.  

14 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

When you flagged targets with each coil before following up with to see what the other coil showed, did you only flag targets which showed (exclusively) non-ferrous tones?  If so, did either coil find a non-ferrous target that the other 'thought' was clearly ferrous?

Thanks GBA.  I only targeted non-ferrous on this test... but good comment, marking targets on the ferrous side of the scale is another telling test.  I think that would be a good test running F2=0 as well.  

I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15.  

Disclaimer:  This is what I observed in my testing, my ground, my occasional surmising, and feedback from the targets I marked.  Your results will most definitely vary.  I am not a scientist, nor an engineer... just a guy trying to find the best way to use the equipment I have.  I am also not trying to speak poorly of either coil - as both have merits.

I ran both coils with the exact setup - including noise cancel setting (it took me a few times to get the same setting though they were pretty close between the two) and pumping for the ground balance on the first coil - resulting in 0, then ensuring same on subsequent coils.  Park 1, 50 tones, Horseshoe, Recovery 6, F2=6, Sensitivity 20.  

I marked 10 targets with the ML, then followed the same path with the CT and marked any additional tones.  Then went through the process again starting with the CT and followed the same path with the ML marking any additional targets.  Targets ranged in depth, wanting to better understand the VID comparison at varying depths as well as the sheer depth from each coil. 

Unfortunately, nothing spectacular for the virtual finds table (I guess I need to tag along with Gerry to his silver fields :)), but I wasn't expecting anything but some results I could use on other locations.

Without diving into the details of each dig, what I found was:

• Both coils have similar depth in my ground, which is also to say - neither coil is deeper than the other - at least in the targets I tested.  I found the audio feedback to be very similar on deep targets.  One specific target was a piece of smashed copper tubing that was 15" deep (I'm lucky this ground was conducive to digging), and gave me a similar faint-ish signal bouncing between 17 and 20 on both coils - (quarter for size reference):
• 

• I mentioned this in my earlier post - I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint the CT coil, as I don't think the hot spot is centered on the coil.. more testing needed.  But using the wiggle back method works, as long as there are no other targets under the coil (which is 3" wider than the ML obviously), especially on the deeper, more faint targets.  I have some initial ideas on how to approach pinpointing with the CT, having swept over the ML targets with it... but again, I need to do more testing to verify my thoughts.

• ID's are somewhat equal on each coil with one exception noted - the CT coil seems to false on rusty iron more than the ML.  Again, this was one test run, however in my test method listed above, I found 4 additional targets with the CT following the same ML path... all were repeatable (one way... which is the fall back to keep from digging iron I understand) and ended up being bent nails when dug - and this was in F2=6... if I was running F2=0, this may have been a different story - more testing needed.  When I started with the CT on fresh targets, the ML didn't find any additional targets, and 3 of the CT targets ID'd as iron with the ML.  One wheat seemed to hit a little harder on the ML (9"), but I was going by memory, and the swing path was most likely slightly off... so difficult to tell.  Both coils gave me the "dig" tone and id.

• It should not go without mentioning (again) the weight of the CT coil is noticeably heavier than the ML.  I will most likely feel the effects of that if I were to spend a long day detecting with the CT.  I am also interested to see what it feels like in the water - hopefully a trip to the beach soon to test it out.  

So, my first test I was able to target a range of coins and trash at depths between 4" and 9" (plus the one dig down to 15"), both coils accurately ID'd the non-ferrous targets (I recovered several clad coins and a host of copper pennies - including 4 wheats, no silver on this hunt, several ring pulls and square tabs, along with some aluminum trash and 3 or 4 .22 brass casings). 

Again, one hunt, one guy, non-scientific, my opinions.  For my own edification, I will want to continue testing at different locations before I determine if there are any advantages for one over the other.  As I led out with - there are most likely merits on both - just want to identify where each of them fit in my hunting. 

~Tim

25 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

And then there's the challenge of not hitting the target with your digging tools when the ground is so hard.

Nice work, both the detecting and the researching!  Looks like that ring is pretty old.  When was it issued?

Thanks GBA.  Challenge indeed (I put a few pretty hefty gouges in some clad in the process).  The ring is from 1985 - I was going to say not too old... but I guess that is still 36 years ago... though could have been dropped at any point since then.  

16 hours ago, dogodog said:

Great job on the saves!!!! You gotta love those kinda hunts!!! Wish you luck with the next shopping trip Ha Ha

Thanks Dog.  I think my wife is on to me... she gave me the "side-eye" as I asked her when she wanted to go shopping again... haha. 

On 4/25/2021 at 12:14 AM, Valens Legacy said:

has the wife laid claim to the silver yet

Not yet VL, but I have a feeling if I repaired the clasp, she may be VERY interested in the chain.  

My thoughts and prayers are with you Norm.  ~Tim

Amazing find Chase.  Gorgeous!

Not sure if this helps, but the poll threads you referenced have the results at the top.  

9 hours ago, Erik Oostra said:

Thanks a lot Tiftaaft.. I've been hesitating in buying one, they're expensive and I don't want to rush into it like I normally do.. 

I should mention my hunting is mostly turf, looks like you are a beach hunter Erik.  Abenson and others will be able to speak more to the beach performance... which I will be taking note of as well - as I am planning on increasing my beach hunts this year on the Gulf Coast of Texas.  ~Tim.

I have had the Coiltek 15" out a few times.  I hope to run some pure comparisons in wild dig settings this coming weekend between the ML 15 and the CT 15.  My initial impression after a few isolated hunts, I didn't notice any improvement over the ML, but wasn't running them head to head.  I found it a little more difficult to pinpoint, though the wiggle back method was accurate off the front and back of center.   I will post my findings when I have some direct comparison results.  ~Tim

How about a good old fashioned stakeout?

Just remember to have eyes on the site!

Wow!  What a haul!!  I would agree that the ATX is gelling with you!  That and a prime location!  

4 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

One of the nicest designs on American coins, along with the Standing Liberty quarter

I have only found one of each (Walker and Standing), and they happened to be nestled right next to each other in the hole.  The quarter sized ring visible on the Walker.  My two favorite designs as well! 

I am constantly amazed at the amount of silver you pull off the beach.  I will continue to live vicariously through your amazing beach hunts.

4 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

There's one out there with my name on it but as yet I haven't figured out where it is....

I have a feeling this is your year GBA!

Great hunt !  Beauty of a half!

Thanks for sharing GBA, we sound very similar, though your expertise in numismatics is light years from mine. 

Wishing you a few excellent days and at least one great day at this site when you are able to get out and hunt it.   👍

On 4/11/2021 at 10:44 AM, GB_Amateur said:

I've been experiencing lower yields due to sites being detected, by me for sure and there are also signs by others previously.  SchoolofHardNox's success on a beach using the Minelab GPX 5000 reminded me to re-read Steve's treatise on using the (in his case original big box Pulsescan) TDI for coin detecting.

I just a few days ago stumbled upon a promising site where extra depth could be key.  It's a schoolyard going back at least to 1955.  Unfortunately as is the case in many of my public sites, it has a history of backfilling.  From aerial photos I see than in the 50's it was grass/sod covered but in the early 60's they put down gravel.  The person who told me about the site (a person who walked up to talk when he saw me hunting a nearby park) said he was a student there 45-50 years ago and at that time it was (again) grass/sod.  I did a one hour survey hunt with the Minelab Equinox (11" coil) and encountered a couple inch thick gravel layer about 5" down.  I did find one Wheatie below the gravel, but 7" is getting deep for my detector + soil mineralization combination so if coins remain from the 50's (pre- gravel layering) then I expect I will do better with extra depth (and that may even be required).

One thing I've found in my detecting of these older sites -- there are always nails present.  So even if my TDI/SPP can deliver in the coin category it's going to be signalling on a lot of nails.  One of the tricks Steve used was to set the conductivity switch to high conductors (low tones) but the TDI/SPP doesn't have that feature -- I will be hearing both high and low tones.  This is a dual disadvantage -- extra tones to have to mentally tune out but also extra threshold noise since both parts of the signal spectrum will be contributing to that as compared to only half when the conductivity-low switch selection is made (on all TDI's except the SPP version).

Here are some specific concerns:

1) Am I fooling myself thinking I can get extra depth with the TDI/SPP, particularly when it comes at the expense of a noisier threshold?

2) Which coil(s) should I be using (choices I'm considering are 6"x8" Nugget Finder Sadie mono, 7"x14" NF mono, and 12" round White's 'Aussie' mono)?

3) Should I flag the promising targets but double check with the Eqx 800 (and if so, should I use the 11" or 12"x15" coil on the 800)?  (Note, even if I choose this route I will likely at first dig, regardless of what the 800 says, just to get an idea of what is giving the signal and how deep the targets are.)

Any other advice (from anyone) is appreciated.

 

 

GBA, Just curious... what would you consider a success at this promising site at the end of a day's hunting?  ~Tim.

Update to my Old School Quest.   

With the 1936 Buffalo I recovered last night at 10"+

My checklist is filling up...

Silver recoveries include:

• 1942 Washington Quarter (Explorer II 13" Ultimate- Thanks for the help Tom-CA)
• 1943 War Nickel (Equinox 11" stock)
• 1943 War Nickel (Equinox 12x15")

Buffalo Nickel recoveries include:

• No Date Buffalo (Explorer XS 13" Ultimate)
• No Date Buffalo (Equinox 12x15")
• 1936 Buffalo (ATX 10x12 - Thanks GBA)

"V" Nickel recoveries include:

• 1912 Liberty V Nickel (Equinox 11" Stock)

I have also recovered a dozen or so wheat cents... only the elusive IHP remains to complete the checklist.

Just ordered one, and a set of 18650's.  Looking forward to installing it in my V3i.