Gold Catcher

Why develop a dedicated gold VLF detector (GM2000?) when models like the Manticore already excel in Gold Mode, even though their main focus is treasure hunting? It appears that new VLF detectors will inevitably be crafted with versatile applications in mind. Eventually, VLF technology will reach its limits though, regardless of configuration, as innovation shifts toward PI and ZVT systems. However, I believe the prospects for a new 8000 are promising, provided it offers a unique and enhanced performance package. Despite differing opinions, there is still gold to be found out there.😁 GC

For mineralized ground you want the smallest coil on a VLF. The less magnetic interference the coil sees the better it will find you tiny gold. I have both but stick with the M8. GC

The most crucial setting hasn't been mentioned yet, and that's your attitude. Stay positive, enthusiastic, and persistent in whatever you do. Get to know your detector and learn from every target you dig, whether it's gold or not. GC

The GPX 6000 and GPZ 7000 detectors complement each other exceptionally well, and if I had to choose just two detectors, these would be my top picks. Depth is influenced by more than just the coil; the GPZ 7000 outperforms other detectors largely due to its versatility and advanced ground processing capabilities. Even with the NF12 coil, the GPZ 7000 can reach considerable depths, provided the proper settings, effective coil control, and attentive listening skills are in place. The larger 17-inch coil on the GPX 6000 is more beneficial for ground coverage than for depth, a fact that has been widely recognized. Conversely, the GPX 6000 can still find deep nuggets with the smaller 12x7 coil, as long as the user isn't overwhelmed by shallow, insignificant targets. On my Sierra patch, all my larger deep nuggets were discovered using the GPX 6000. Although the GPX 6000 is often associated with targeting shallow gold, its capability to reach deeper targets is frequently underestimated, even when equipped with a smaller coil. GC

That would be the holy grail indeed, Norvic! Perhaps forever an illusion, but who knows perhaps with the raising gold price more and more companies will go into serious engineering. When I look at detectors I strictly look at performance, not what company makes it. So, coming back to the black sand example, kudos to Algo for clearly having a superior performance in these unusual circumstances where the big guys fall short. This is reason enough for me to get one. The bigger my toolbox the better. I am eager to test it in the magnetite laden vulcanic basalt grounds where my compas keeps spinning around. No chance for any of my detectors there thus far..🤠 GC .

One detector never fits all needs. It is the right detector for the right situation that will bring you the gold. Are there situations where the 6000 struggles with the ground? Of course there are. Is it therefore an inferior detector overall? Of course not. With all the criticism of having too few options the 6000 is an incredible and sophisticated machine that finds gold in many situations, more so than others. I venture to say that the black sand example is an extreme case, and for these cases having a detector like the Algo on hand that can produce is a blessing. Just like having a good VLF like the Manticore on hand for trashy ground. Only because the 6000 and 7000 are less useful where discrimination is needed doesn't make them less good detectors, right? Too much black and white thinking here IMO. It is the right machine for the right job what matters. And the 6000 and 7000 are just right for me in most cases (but not all). And I also don't believe that anyone here seriously believes that there is a detector out there that beats both the 6000 and 7000 in overall performance, across a wide variety of grounds and circumstances. Even at these high price points both detectors have paid comfortably for themselves, at least for me. GC

Many thanks. JP, really appreciate your insights. I have a long word document where I extracted your excellent comments/tutorials that you made about the Z on DP over the years. Your last post is making a great addition, and I hope it won't be the last chapter 🙂 Best, GC

I only pump the coil up and down without pressing the quick track button. If in auto/semi-auto mode this brings the tracking back into sync, i.e. during location change. However, during the real GB procedure I don't pump but rather swing the coil back and forth over the same ground while pressing the button. If I use manual GB I don't pump the coil in between since there is no tracking on, so no need for syncing. Instead, I repeat the GB procedure with button pressed if the soil conditions change. Also, I only use the ferrite for auto/semi auto, for manual I just use the ground. I hope I do all this right.....Re depth and HY vs General, I always thought General is when the detector is at maximum to cover a variety of different target and depth possibilities. It loses a bit sensitivity for the shallow fast gold but has a broader target range. I have heard some deep targets (nuggets 1-10 g) in general/difficult that I did not hear in HY normal. But I think this is extremely ground dependent and might be related to the weird places I hunt. I am glad you bring all this up Gerry! The Z is still King IMO and you never can learn enough, not even after 10 years. 🙂 GC

Great job, Gerry! I have encountered these iffy signals before, mostly at RP. What has helped for me is changing the timings from general to normal and back when digging. Only when both modes confirm a clear target while removing layers it turned out to be gold (about 1 out of 4 times). I think the ground processing in both modes changes differently as the soil is being moved, and sometimes signals disapear for one but not the other mode. Using general/difficult rather than normal can also be improving consistency of response. Also, I always keep smooting off, and switch to manual GB which helps in these situations. Nice nuggy! GC

I am actually wondering the same thing. Would be great to train the detector in a given gold field to increase the confidence in finding gold. Would be transformational. GC

He should go to have a look and let us know. GC

Most nuggets I dug at my Sierra patch, including the 1.5 oz, were low/high at depth and sounded just like junk or mineralization. I am also doubtful that any ID meter would reliably tell what is gold and what is not, in particualr at depth. Re sound, I am always amazed by people saying they can tell by the sound what is likely gold and what is trash. I can't, and have been wrong so many times. GC

In 2001 when the gold price was at $300 the flag ship detector was the ML GP Extreme which cost roughly 5 oz gold at that time. The new ML GPZ successor will likely cost about 4 oz gold when it will be released. So, a huge increase in innovation will cost you the same or slighly less amount of gold. Pretty cool when you think about it. GC

Perhaps you can watch it with a VPN? As Gold Seeker said, it is a TV channel, and they can perhaps have country restrictions. It's too bad, they really did a good job with a lot of original pictures and footage. GC