Jump to content

Gold Catcher

Member
  • Posts

    1,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database

Downloads

Calendar

Everything posted by Gold Catcher

  1. Hi HNSGP, I would actually consider a used SDC instead, or the Axiom. I know this will be at higher cost, but having a PI rather than a VLF will be the better choice for your purpose, IMO. Sierra Nevada is full of hot rocks and heavy mineralization, and PI, especially MPF, will be a big advantage. Swing any VLF over the motherlode serpentine schist, and you will know what I am saying.🙃 GC
  2. I use the SDC practically always for shallow washes. But i have recovered bigger gold, including a 8g specimen about a foot deep. But I would say that this is rather an exception and depth with the 8 inch coil will depend on many factors, including soil factors, gold shape/density, coil sweep speed etc. No general rules here, but due to MPF and the small coil size the main focus for the SDC is clearly small shallow gold. However, it really depends also on how you run it. Cranking up to 5 will require a totally different listening technique than having it at 2 and listen to super faint treshold variations and warbles. Both techniques could not be more different from eachother. Running it hot at 5 will almost exclusively detect high/low signals and shallow gold, and deeper targets will often be masked. I personally like to listen "deep", something that requires a "fairly" stable treshold. But also that depends on the soil conditions, EMI, etc, and of course how deep you think the gold is. I hardly ever had a case where a surface target was noticeable only at 5 and not at 2. So, IMHO running at 2 or 3 strives a right balance between sensitivity and treshold stability, allowing for both shallow and potentially deeper targets to be heard. These are just my 2c experiences after having used the SDC heavily for >5 years. GC
  3. The SDC continues to be a workhorse for me and it is my to-go detector in shallow mineralized washes in difficult terrain. It is a bit clunky, but extremely robust which makes it a great detector for hiking in steep canyons. Despite MPF, the SDC actually can punch remarkably deep, deeper than one would expect. However, the gain needs to be low, otherwise you will have no chance to hear deeper targets. Cranking up to 5 will focus on 1-3 inch depth very efficiently, but you absolutely will miss targets that are deeper, simply because the threshold gets too unstable to hear the faint warbles. This has been my experience for several years now using the SDC and most operators I talked to think the same. The 8 round is perfectly balanced with the MPF timings, and although I am sure the Coiltek is a superb coil, I don't see any need for the switch. I like that it perfectly folds up and packs in my backpack, and I don't want to give that up. Hopefully, they come up with a modernized version soon. GC
  4. Many thanks, Steve! And yes I am aware of the CA glacial deposits. Although I have not spent much time in the very high up Sierra Nevada regions, I have plans to explore some areas more thoroughly. I will PM you to get you thoughts on a specific location that I have in mind... GC
  5. Fantastic report, Steve. And congrats for finding these beautiful nuggets. Clearly, the Axiom should be called The Beast 😉. Just curious, you mentioned these are glacial deposits. I always thought glacial deposits are mostly fine gold. Is this different up there? Also, I suppose this was a private claim used for commercial operations? GC
  6. Steve, your honesty and integrity is what has made this forum so invaluable. Thank you for being you! GC
  7. Thanks, Condor. Great idea. I can do the labor day weekend Sunday. PM me if you want to hook up.😀 GC
  8. I am also curious how the 17cc performs in general/difficult. I have had several examples with the NF12 where general/difficult punched way deeper than HY/normal in highly minerlaized X laden grounds. GC
  9. Thanks for the report, Condor. No question the 17cc / GPZ is a powerful combination. However, I wager to say that the 12NF would have also picked up a 4 grammer 1 foot deep, without any problem I am pretty sure. The comparison with the quiet 6k (11 inch?) and Axiom is telling though. The GPZ is fantastic at depth and also has superb ground processing abilities. GC
  10. Not sure if bombarding ML with 6k upgrade suggestions would make any difference. In my case, I am fortunate as my machine is working reasonably well with the 11 stock, and if needed I dial down to manual/difficult 2-4. I also have the NF Xceed 8.5 round on order. I won't go much bigger than 11 inch with the 6k as I feel the 6k is best used with smaller coils, like a super PI-monster (just IMHO). Re Axiom, I decided to hold my fire and wait for the new GPZ release. Just too much $$$ already spent, can't keep buying high end detectors every year (wife is already freaking out....). GC
  11. But yet I really like the 6000 too. Plus, there is the guilt. Never traded a ML for a competitor...See how far gone I am already. ML did a good job with me.😉 GC
  12. Exactly my thinking Steve! I just feel bad to trade my 6000 in, kind of like giving your new girlfriend the boot. But I might get something sweeter in return. 😉 GC
  13. And for 7000 users who actually continue to use it, the Axiom might perhaps be a better complimentary detector than the 6000. I am tempted. GC
  14. I always use semi auto GB, manual GB only when homing in on a target, but not all the times (usually only to avoid tracking out faint targets). IMO the GPZ ground processing algorithms are unmatched by any other detector that I have used (including 6000), but it will require a proper GB for it to work. Considering how AI has improved the technology in so many technology sectors, I would not be surprised if it would eventually also be used for gold detectors. There ought to be a way to differentiate lead and iron from gold via decay patterns. Just put Watson on it. But please without adding 2000 lbs to the detector. GC
  15. I find the ferrite ring useful in particular for semi auto GB to avoid X drift. Locking the X without ferrite is not ideal in my experience. Ferrite has made a good difference for me in the past. They just brake easily when throwing on the ground, broke several that way. Also, i reduce gain to about 6 to 8 when GB over the ferrite, otherwise it often won't get completely silent. Auto GB leads to drift over time, even with ferrite, that's why I always prefer semi auto. GC
  16. Many thanks, Steve (and Gerry). And BTW, no bullet intended at all. It's just that I get asked this question a lot from local fellow prospectors and those who want to become one, and since I don't own the Axiom I wanted to give the best possible answer, coming from those who can actually speak to it. In particular, re Axiom vs 6000. Great perspectives, thanks guys. Will pass it on. GC
  17. Thanks, WeSD, that is pretty much what I figured. But it would be good to have a clear understanding, also from a dealers perspective, how to best make use of the Axiom and how to clearly state the pros and cons compared to the competitors, in particular to new customers. The advanced GB capabilities certainly sounds appealing, but I am somewhat less enthused about iron discrimination in general. It never really has worked reliably for me in the past, due to the known shortcomings of discrimination. At times, I am using the iron meter on the GM and it can work, but you have to literally be right on the nugget. >0.5 inch down and all bets are off. And I doubt that on a PI it would work magically better. But I have been surprised before. GC
  18. Many thanks, Gerry. Totally understand your situation. I very much look forward to your reports, as always. 👍 GC
  19. Gerry, thinking back to our "is the 6000 the king" thread, what are your thoughts about Axiom vs 6000? What do you recommend if one would have just one choice to make? Your quote from the King thread: "As a well known Minelab Dealer who’s sold more GPX-6000 than most dealers and my Field Staff/I keeps in contact with many of the customers, I can assure you it’s earned the status of “KING” in the US.". So, do we have a new king now just a few months after the old one was crowned? 🙂 And even if the 6000 would remain king, is it really worth the 2k extra bucks based on your judgement? Just curious what your thoughts are as I am sure you will get asked this question a lot. Thx. GC
  20. I think these are really good points. An alternative marketing strategy could have been to price the Axiom with very little profit margins, just to break into ML territory and to (potentially) proof skittish prospectors that they are a serious contender to ML. This would have allowed for a much more convincing market positioning of the brand as a whole, and it also could have paved the road to secure higher profit margins in the future with subsequent detector models. It looks like they have chosen to price themselves out from this opportunity. Perhaps a lack of long term vision here. GC
  21. To me the question remains what market share the Axiom will have, in particular in Au where ML is so dominant. By now, most serious prospectors will have both the 6000 and 7000, and with a new GPZ release looming (at least at some point in time), making another big investment now, only to then pay again for the next GPZ does not appear to be a very cost effective strategy. From what I read thus far, the Axiom appears to be an excellent choice for new-comers who might have otherwise bought the 6000. But the current GPZ, including it's upcoming successor, will likely remain the best detector technology money can buy, in particular when combined with after market coil options (i.e. X-coil) and for deep gold detecting. GC
  22. That's the difference between the old soils (Au) and "newer" soils (US). Au soil is mineralized but more uniform, whereas US soils tend to be more inhomogeneous (i.e. super hot rocks surrounded by milder soil). Of course these are only very general trends. But I think it is much harder to deal with non-homogenous grounds, and in addition many times gold is stuck to these screaming volcanic hot rocks. That's a challenge for every detector and good ground balancing is almost impossible, due to the extreme differences in close proximity. So, yeah, I would prefer the more uniform grounds even if they are mostly hot. So, it will be very interesting to see how the GB algorithms of the Axiom can deal with these extreme differences without loosing sensitivity for gold. From all that I read, I am very optimistic ! GC
  23. Awesome, thanks Steve. Now comes the tough part: get a hold of one. 😁 GC
  24. Very good, Norvic. You with your Inmarsat and I with my Iridium, this will keep us completely covered when we go out hunting. Just imagine the horrible scenario that the espresso would go out, a true emergency where we could call for rescue supply 🤠😁 GC
×
×
  • Create New...