Gold Catcher

Steve, your honesty and integrity is what has made this forum so invaluable. Thank you for being you!

GC 

And yeah, RP is mostly salt, and not harsh X. But nevertheless, good to compare

Thanks, Condor. Great idea. I can do the labor day weekend Sunday. PM me if you want to hook up.😀

GC

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

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

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

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

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? 

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

6 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

No "may" about it. The first real competition Minelab has ever faced in PI has finally 

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

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

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

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  

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 

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

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

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 

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

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 !

GC

Awesome, thanks Steve. Now comes the tough part: get a hold of one. 😁

GC

Thanks, Steve. That begs the question if the Axiom would not be a better choice than the 6000 for areas with high mineralization (like most of CA). One option would be to trade in the 6 k, get the Axiom, and then safe the money for the next GPZ. Difficult choices.....

GC

I wonder in what category the Axiom would fall, if it were a ML detector. Gold detector or treasure detector? It appears to be a PI treasure detector with gold capabilities, so perhaps something like a supercharged PI-Nox?

GC

I am very interested to learn more about Garretts technology to completely balance out hot rocks including magnetite. If history is a lesson this would automatically also mean severly reduced sensitivity to small gold in close vicinity. At least this is true for all ML detectors I have ever owned. But who knows, perhaps Bruce Candy finally found his match. 😁

GC

Thanks for this excellent summary, Steve. Sounds really interesting. If I would not already been so heavily invested into ML machines I would for sure want to have one. It's just that in my particular situation spending another 4k now and then potentially another 10-12k in a year or two (or whenever) for the next GPZ would be too much.  But on a side note, I really applaud Garrett for coming out with what appears to be an outstanding detector that has the potential to compete with ML. We need more competition in the high quality PI arena, this will benefit all of us 🙂

GC

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Once a person has over $10,000 of detecting gear, tossing more money at it is not likely to change anything.

The 6000 is indeed challenged by hot rocks, so perhaps here the Axiom has a distinct advantage? I will be looking out for the field reports in this regard. For areas where the 6000 is not workable I use the 7000, mostly then in general/difficult. For severe hot rock grounds I have not yet found any detector that works better than the GPZ when run with these settings, something that can't be done with the 6000. I would be very interested to compare performances running the GPZ in general/difficult with the Axion in those conditions, in particular for non-surface smaller gold. Perhaps a win here for Garrett?

GC

I think it all will come down to individual choices and expectations. I am not a relic hunter and natural gold is the only thing that I am after, so I will save this (significant) sum for the next GPZ release.

GC