Jump to content

Gold Catcher

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Northern California
  • Interests:
    Gold, Hiking, Geology, Desert
  • Gear In Use:
    GPZ 7000+19/ NF12-Zsearch, SDC 2300, GPX 6000 (+17 in + Goldhawk 9, NF 12 x 7), Manticore, Gold Monster 1000

Recent Profile Visitors

7,015 profile views

Gold Catcher's Achievements

Gold Contributor

Gold Contributor (5/6)

3k

Reputation

  1. I use the torus neck speaker also with the 6k when I am in bear country. I prefer the supplied ML headset, but then I can't hear what's around me, or what's creeping up on me...The problem is just that when I run the 6000 on max gain the torus does give a lot of EMI when I come close to the coil with the scoop during recovery. I try to stay away from the coil with my arm fully extended when I swipe the scoop over the coil, but even then it interferes a lot, to a point where I have missed small gold because I could not hear it in the midst of the "EMI moaning". GC
  2. I always thought that "quieter" automatically mean less sensitivity and less depth. Something has to give; you can't have it both ways. I wonder if there ever will be a detector technology that does not have to compromise. The Z with the NF-DOD coil appears to have a good balance in this regard (IMO). Re 6000 at low gain, only sensitivity to shallow gold is mostly maintained, but depth-loss is significant in my experience. GC
  3. Thanks Norvic, great words of wisdom! Also, I have not forgotten about the average size nuggets that I am usually finding. Making ends meet with those would be tough ๐Ÿ˜‰ Better just enjoying the beautiful nature with my espresso machine always ready by my truck. Then finding some shiny would always just be an added benefit. And I wouldn't have to make bear friends neither...๐Ÿ˜ GC
  4. Ha, I think she would not be surprised. But the gold would need to keep flowing. And I am somewhat less certain about that... GC
  5. Thanks guys for all your feedback, really appreciated. Next summer I will have a closer look at the wider area, there are several more sediment accumulations like that one. I think BMc's theory is likely, namely that the old timers just dug it up to get to the small adjacent stream. I did not see any bedrock in the stream channel however, and I even did some digging there to find it. Just more sand and rocks in a shallow ravine. So this remains puzzeling. GC
  6. Thanks, and also great equipment suggestions. ๐Ÿ˜ Something like that would be great..and also someone who keeps the bears away. GC
  7. Many thanks Gerry! Yes, that's exactly what's on my mind 24/7. I wish I could think of anything else actually....๐Ÿ™ƒ๐Ÿ˜ GC
  8. Many thanks, yes this is a great paper. As a matter of fact, I came to the same write up a few days ago when I was reading about these gravel deposits. Steve posted this also a few years back on DP. Super interesting, and I will have a careful read. Best, GC
  9. This area is a large glacial zone with several mines in close vicinity, so the nature of the deposit is predominantly determined by glacial flow (at least from the reports I have seen). From what I understand, small local streams can form sporadically as the ice moves but should not be mistaken for real riverbeds. They are rather local events that can form anywhere within the glacial movement and are very sporadic and scattered across a very large area. But the conclusion that the gold came with the (local) stream appears very reasonable. However, I don't think there is a real source of the gold like in conventional streams with vein deposits at their beginning. GC
  10. You are raising some very good points. I don't have the impression that this material has been turned over (but I could of course be wrong), and there are occasionally larger boulders mixed in as well, some are round, and some are edgy. But the fact that I find square nails is puzzling, although only at the very front part of the patch. It could be some sort of moraine, even though I always thought that moraines have much larger boulders rather than more fine material (but again I could be wrong...). There is a little stream bed next to it on the other side that does have a lot more iron trash in it, but whether or not the stream created the deposit I don't know. What I find remarkable though is that the gold is only concentrated in a very small area, when compared with the entire sediment accumulation shown in the pic. I am not an expert with glacial deposits (I am more of a desert guy), and I would welcome any feedback from more "glacially seasoned" prospectors. ๐Ÿ™‚ I have attached another pic that shows a representative composition of a hole. Not sure if any cluse can be found with it. Thanks again for your comments! GC
  11. I did another trip yesterday to my patch. I left at 4.30 am and got to my parking area at 8 am, then I had to do my 2-mile hike. It was unpleasantly cold (25 deg F, -4 deg C), and by the time I got there I was pretty much frozen. The first thing I noticed was fresh bear scat on my patch, it looked like the bear just left. Well, not a company I was eager to have, in particularly not while being all by myself. I began to detect, and after a few square nails I had this mellow low/high signal. It sounded just like another nail or iron trash, or perhaps mineralization, but it turned out to be a 1 /2 oz nugget (kind of looks like a frog). Interestingly, the channel never flipped, and it was a low/high signal all the way until I had it in my scoop. It is good to remember that deeper bigger nuggets can give low/high signals just like iron trash does, in contrast to shallower gold targets (and lead...) which mostly give high/low signals with the 6000. This is another reason why I personally don't distinguish targets by sound, I have been wrong so often by now. The nugget was about 14 inches deep and was clearly audible with the headset. This is another good example of how well the 6000 with a round coil can punch, despite the rather small coil size (settings: manual 10/normal). In total, I recovered around 19 g today, with some really small pieces as well. In total I have recovered a little bit over 110g during my past 5 trips (the frog-nugget had to hop from the scale since the scale tops out at 100g). This has been the most interesting patch, which I accidentally discovered while hiking with my Manticore (always in my backpack). What strikes me is that the patch is confined and rather small, with all nuggets in an area not more than roughly 40 feet long. In the picture you can see that the area stretches out with gravel/sand deposits further in the back, but I never found any gold there. For whatever reason only the front part, which I have heavily worked by now, has gold in it. The ground is packed sand with river gravel. It is not really loose sand but rather pretty tightly โ€œconglomeratedโ€, with many tree roots in them, and it takes quite a bit of work to dig the holes. The challenge is to find these patches, and before finding it I searched for many days up there without any luck. This is typical for glacial deposits where gold can be scattered all over the place. Now snow will come soon, and this has likely been my last trip there for this year. Next summer I will be back with heavier gear (6000/17 inch coil, 7000 etc). Letโ€™s see how much the patch still has to give. And if I ever find another one up there. GC
  12. Many thanks Gerry. I had it actually in between my teeth and wanted to take a selfie, but then I reconsidered and thought that this should always be your signature selfie style (that we all came to love). ๐Ÿ˜ GC
  13. Hi s.y, there is nothing principally wrong with the stock 11" and it is a fairly sensitive coil (albeit some expressed concerns about the durability). The NF12x7 runs a bit more stable and overall gives a more rounded profile IMO. But it is a bit less sensitive at the outer edge for about 0.3 inch from the rim, so this is where the 11" has a slight advantage. But for me personally the NF is still my preferred choice. WRT to depth, I don't really see much difference, taking under consideration though the different coil shapes (round vs elliptic) that somewhat impacts the geometry of the signal coverage underground (slightly different cone-shapes). BTW, I also have the Coiltek 9 round which is an excellent coil too, albeit perhaps more focused on shallower gold due to the smaller size. But both NF and Coiltek make excellent coils for the 6000. Hope this helps and good luck to you too. GC
×
×
  • Create New...