Gold Catcher

For VLFs the soil is the biggest factor. You're surely spoiled with the conditions you are having in New Zealand, as you are saying. However, In most parts of the other world gold bearing areas are extremely mineralized, which makes PIs the much better choice. For the general exploration trips I use my SDC (and digg it all), which is also less sensitive to hotrocks than the 6000. At times, I use the GM/5, but mostly only for bedrock scraping and crevice scouting. The GB2 has never delivered for me in heavy mineralized grounds and gold can very easily be missed That's why the SDC/MPF was developed in the first place, which I view as a "hot soil GB2", but with additional potential for somewhat better depth. If the Manticore will be a game changer in this regard we shall see. But I have my doubts, since a VLF will always remain in principle a VLF, does'nt matter how you pack it. However, for treasure hunting this machine will without a doubt be a delight. GC

The winning guy looks a bit like Steve (no offense Steve...) 😁

Good video. All were shallow surface targets though that the pinpointer easily picked up. It would be interesting to see the target IDs at some depth and how well this would work by comparison. I am personally not a relic/treasure hunter and don't care too much about discriminating metals, but I can see how this machine could be a real value addition for those who are into it. Amazing the plethora of settings and graphic displays. Makes my 6000 with virtually no settings to choose from look cheap....😉 Nice job ML! GC

Exactly right, Norvic. I am the same way. Early in my detecting life someone once close to Jim Straight told me that Jim would get excited about every single nugget he found, didn't matter the size. That story has stayed in my mind ever since and has made a lasting impression on me, especially considering what gold he found over his career. A true gold prospector cherishes gold, no matter what. GC

As always, it depends on individual perspectives. I kind of see it both ways. Improving what can be found on old patches, including opening up fields that are thus far difficult to detect (i.e. extensive hot rocks), but also trying to find new patches in unexplored areas (where no man has gone before). Re size, I am happy about all, and a 0.1 g nugget can make me as excited as much larger ones. After all, it is about finding gold, and I have not yet yawned about any nugget in my scoop. Gold is gold to me, small or large. But I am also not trying to pay bills with it. And I doubt that many really would be able to do so anyhow, despite of what they are hoping. At least not here in the US and by just doing metal detecting. GC

A better detector won't of course help with trash (assuming disc is out of question). But perhaps identifying gold close to (or attached to) hot rocks is something a better processing algorithm could achieve. The pic below is an example of what I am describing, taking from a hunting trip yesterday. All super iron rich volcanic tuff. Gold is often stuck to them or is in very close proximity. Some guys were up here with me, one with a 6000 and one with a GB2. They were just laughing....

I tend to agree with you Steve, but those areas I was describing also have a lot of trash, meaning not many people are detecting there due to the challenges with the ground. I suspect there is plenty of gold still there that is currently difficult to recover. But for most other areas I agree, and the Motherlode is a great example for that. However, I also think hunting gold where gold was found before remains a winning strategy, perhaps not the only one though. GC

Better ground processing in difficult soil would allow for greater depth, without the gold actually being physically deeper than in normal soil. This is exactly where I believe technology can improve. I get your point that for mild soil this does not matter much, but in other parts of the world this would be a game changer. In many areas I have no choice but to hunt in general/difficult (volcanic tuff). Switching to HY in either normal or difficult would make the detector completely useless, even general/normal would not work. Here is where a lot of improvements can be done, so I completely agree with you. BTW, for those areas I don't even bother to take the 6000 or the SDC. Another reason why a high-end top line gold detector needs settings options (!), and I think the current GPZ strives a good balance by having just the right settings menu to choose from. What would make me not want to buy the GPZ8? A "smart" machine that would do the thinking for me, ala 6000, with only little settings options to choose from. I love the 6000, but it has serious limitations to a point where it is unusable, i.e. in the areas that I was describing, where literally every rock is a screamer (6/14 makes no difference). With all the greatness of the 6000, it kind of sucks to have a $6000 machine, and you can't adjust any settings to make it usable for these specific tough grounds. Half of the Mojave Desert is littered with volcanic hot rocks, and that is right where the gold bearing areas are. And I am not just saying areas with hot rocks here and there that you can kick away, I mean large areas with shallow and deep hot rocks and that's all there is. Go and take a swing with the 6k in these areas, and you know what I mean. Just for that reason, I would be very interested in the Axiom, had I not the GPZ that would come to my rescue (in general/difficult). However, the Axiom could even have an edge over the GPZ in those specific circumstances. I would love to make a head-to-head comparison to see which detector would recover better small gold that is stuck to serious hot rocks. That is how you find most of the gold there. GC

Much reduced weight, perhaps punching a bit deeper, faster ground processing, updated and faster software and better(!) screen would do for me. Asking for acurate discrmination at depth is asking for too much IMO. I am no engineer, but I heard engineers saying accurate discrmination is a pipe dream and not technically feasible, in particular at the detecting edge. If the GPZ8 would come with discrimination I would almost think this would be purely to please relic hunters, and kind of a joke for a high end gold detector. I don't think anybody really believes in accurate discrimination, unless you want to identify a rusty can from a gold watch (perhaps). GC

From the above discussion it would appear that there is not much reason to make any new gold metal detector from here on. The Axiom as a versatile all-round PI, the 6000 as specialized small/medium gold sniffer, the 7000 for depth and advanced settings and best ground processing. So, is this the end? Really? I personally don't think so. But the point is well taken, the advancements in technology need to be striking to justify a true value return for the money in terms of gold finds. And that is also getting harder with less and less gold in the (reachable) ground. But all that being said, I suspect the same people who refuse any thoughts of buying the new "GPZ8" will eventually change their minds, once they see a horde of prospectors are out there with the latest and greatest, while they are missing out. It is the "gold bug" in us and the obsession for metal detecting that keeps us going and that can't tolerate that someone else "might" have an advantage in the field. And that advantage might indeed be real. GC

I noticed the same, Norvic. JP is missing in action on DP. That for sure means the "GPZ8" is coming. If the release date would be 2023 (and not sometime in 2025...) that could mean trouble for the Axiom sales. Considering the high price tag of the GPZ8, advanced prospectors might think hard whether to buy the Axiom now and then the GPZ in addition, or to wait for the GPZ release. Considering that the Axiom would for sure be no match to the new GPZ, this could become an issue. Also considering the high price tag for the Axiom which for sure does not help. I could see that beginner prospectors would buy the Axiom, and the advanced ones the GPZ. All speculations from my end, but assuming Bruce Candy will not disapoint with the new flagship ML detector, the Axiom thunder could be muted. ML for sure knows how critical timing is. GC

I will reserve judgement and first wait what the new GPZ actually has to offer, before making any decisions about a potential purchase. I noticed on other forums that new ML detectors are being bashed without even knowing anything about them, leave alone having seen any pictures, specs, or knowing anything really that would allow good judgment. Seems to be a big and persistent trend. GC

I wonder what would happen to the Coiltek coils under the same squeeze testing conditions GC

I paid the full 6k and I AM worried about shipping the unit off without having reliable insurance for the full value. But paying $100 for insurance isn't that nice neither. But so many packages are being lost or stolen. Having no apropriate coverage when shipping appears risky IMO. GC

I personally like the GPZ with the NF12 and will not buy the 17x13. First of all, the Z/12 is a very nice and "lighter" combination that just strives the right balance between depth and sensitivity to shallow gold. In fact, it comes pretty close to the 6/11 when run hot in HY/normal. I also find the Z is much easier to swing over longer periods of time with the NF12, and for most applications the depth of the NF12 is just fine. I have recovered some fairly deep gold with it, but it does require slow and overlapping swings. In addition, I want to hold my fire for the next gen GPZ which I "think" is just around the corner. Once released, I will review my options and then decide if the 17x13 for the "old" GPZ would really be a wise investment. I suspect the new GPZ will be around $10k or more, so every dollar saved now counts for me. Just my 2c. GC