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

Posts 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

    • Like 7
    • Thanks 1
  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

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  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

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  4. 9 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

    The clay is settled glacial silt, but the placer is more complex than just simple glacial deposits. Coarse gold can and does occur in glacial terrain. Geology is rarely simple, and here we have chunky gold, with lots of quartz. Plenty of bedrock sources at Nome, many still undiscovered. Long story short more than one thing was happening here geologically. Did you know the Northern California high Sierra gold country is full of glacial deposits, and also has very large gold nuggets? https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/620-glaciers-gold/

    Yes, the miners are engaged in serious commercial scale operations. I got to hold a jug with 450 ounces of gold in it. :smile:

    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

    • Like 1
  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

     

    • Like 1
  6. 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

    • Like 1
  7. 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

     

    • Like 4
    • Haha 2
  8. 1 minute ago, Steve Herschbach said:

    I think that is true actually. The Z and the 6000 both are troubled by similar hot rocks and salt ground, that the Axiom handles with ease. Z + Axiom is a great pairing. Or is it A to Z? :laugh:

    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

    • Like 1
  9. 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

  10. 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

    • Like 3
  11. 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  

    • Like 3
  12. 54 minutes ago, WesD said:

    Goldcatcher I would guess, or bet the statement that you get what you pay for applies here.  

    So if you insert the new Garret in the lineup of top gun gold detectors, it fills in a gap somewhere between a 5000 and 6000.  I do like the  junk iron disc feature on the Garret though. Hope Minelab gets on that with the next one!

    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 

    • Like 2
  13. 25 minutes ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

    I hate it when the sound of a bullet whizzes by me as I'm on a hillside....

    At this time, I'll pass on the comparison as I sell them both.

    I really do appreciate your desire to hear my thoughts as it means you believe some of what I say.

    I'll say this for now and possibly/probably more down the road, when allowed.

    Since I hunt a variety of areas, terrains, kinds of gold in different situations....I want a detector that is more capable of settings and coil options.  If that tool is a chunk of change less money, then I'm more happy as I can afford to go more often.

    I know this is not the answer you are wanting, but please understand all the gun barrels pointed at me.  Heck I was taking out the trash this morning and a truck driving down the road backfired.  I hit the deck, grabbed the Axiom and emptied my clip.🤣

    Many thanks, Gerry. Totally understand your situation. I very much look forward to your reports, as always. 👍

    GC

    • Like 1
  14. 15 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

    Just looking over all the gold I have been able to recover with the new Garrett Axiom

    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

    • Like 1
    • Oh my! 1
  15. 3 hours ago, Northeast said:

    Until we see that it is genuinely going to work well across Aus goldfields (especially re: Ground Balance) then it probably won’t sell well at that price. 

    And due to the price, we aren’t going to see many units in peoples hands to get that knowledge.  

    And until we get that knowledge we aren’t going to pay that price.  

    And because we won’t pay that price due to not having the knowledge we will never get that knowledge and therefore be unwilling to pay the price.  

    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 

    • Like 1
  16. 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

    • Like 1
  17. 2 hours ago, Tony said:

    Depends on location but in my ground it tends be uniformly hot across a wide area

    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 !1464757148_hoyrocks.thumb.JPG.eeafffc307e92834c4c6a7dc04b12a87.JPG

    GC

     

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...