Gold Catcher

Wow this is incredible, Gerry! And thanks for your excellent comments. Can't beat the results, can you? 👍I wanted to post a pic with the GM 5 in coil loaded with tiny small gold pieces that I found with it. But after the pic you just posted, I somehow don't feel like it anymore...😉

Thanks for sharing, Rob. Very nice!! And yeah, I love the Two Toes crevice tool too and have it always with me. But probably unlike you, I had to pay for it 😉

If I go to some of the hydraulic mine pits none of my detectors are of any use, but the GM. I hunt in deep but use the iron meter to discriminate, after some minor scraping to get clear ID's. The GB2 is completely useless in these areas as the grounds are highly mineralized and it goes off everywhere. The iron reject of the GB2 is a joke, but granted it is using an ancient technology. The GM is such an easy machine, but you need to actually properly condition it to function at peak performance. The processor and automatic tracking works great but I often reduce sensitivity to get it stable. I have the version where you can do the quick track which really helps. The GB2 works only well in super mild soil, at least for me. But then however, is is a real shallow gold sniffing beast! As said, the Nox/ 6 inch will give you more bang for the buck, also due it's versatility. I will wait for the next gen Nox before I pull the trigger. Since I am not a relic hunter, the GM works fine thus far to fill my needs. But back to the topic, I wish the 6000 would come with some sort of discrimination feature. I realize this will not be possible with the new DD coil, but to me there is a real need for a next gen.PI to have some sort of iron meter.

That' a matter of oppinion. The GM has found me good gold in shallow ground and IMHO the processor combined with iron meter makes it superior over the GB2 (which I also own), in particular when used in somewhat more difficult ground. True, the Nox 800 is probably a better joice, but I would not call the GM junk. It all depends on what else you've got in your fleet and how well it fits in. With the 5 in coil the GM makes a great bedrock scraper. 😁

Well said. Something tells me the SDC won't go away anytime soon. It was a huge sales hit and there are hords of SDC freaks out there who swear on it, for its applicability in those special circumstances that was mentioned. I think rather than dying out it will at some point be reborn, hopefully sporting the features that you mentioned 😁

As I said before, the SDC has unique features that sets it apart from other detectors. Most of all, it completely submerges in my backpack. I don't want to have a coil sticking out. In contrast to perhaps many, I leave my vehicle and go for long hikes into wild terrain. No other detector is more suitable for this purpose, combined with being water proof. And aside from it's somewhat fragile spring loaded battery compartment, it is incredible rugged and you can beat it in rough terrain without problem (just put the knuckle guard on). The 6000 collapses, but not to the size of the SDC. So, it's not just a beginner machine but rather meets specific needs even for seasonend operators. Re 6000, lets just all wait for the first reports to come out. The GeoPI combined with ultra leight weight bears significant promise and without a doubt this will be a superbly designed machine. Whether or not you feel the need to buy it will be an individual decision you will have to make. Me, I can't wait to have it. I want to thank JP for having helped to develop this machine. Without a doubt it took many many hours of testing. Given his experience and expert advice to Minelab, I have no doubt the 6000 will be stellar.

Just cheers from us for sure !👍

I think the star-rating is only one part of the equation. Each of these machines have unique features that justify their mutual existence IMO. GM as a super light VLF representative with iron probability meter (although you can argue that the Nox 800 eats into it...), the SDC for its compact size and being water-proof, the 5000 for it's coil versatility and "settings maze", the 6000 for a light weight option with a presumed performance advantage for small and medium nuggets including the 14DD for difficult EMI/conductivity, and the GPZ for deeper bigger nuggets in challenging grounds in open fields. I guess we need to own them all! 😁

Still, 1 star for SDC and GPZ is a bit odd. But it shows the intended trend across machines.

Here is the complete comparison including GPZ. Sorry for the blurred picture.

Perhaps selling some expensive dowsing rods to raise some cash for the real thing 🤑

An expensive armada....😉

It will also be interesting to make this comparison with small gold when the gold is actually burried in the ground. The ground processing I always found to be a real strenght of the GPZ. But no doubt the 6000 has alot to offer. Can't wait to get mine!!

Yes good point. I was refering to small gold nuggets and flakes. But consitency is key since even faster time decay if porous

Could be invisible with smoothing on. With smoothing off in HY/N I have picked up stuff so small that you can barely see it with your eye. So, I remain curious how much better the 14dd ultimately will be on tiny gold. So much depends on the settings on how you run the GPZ and conditions. Also, not many people pay attention to the really tiny gold with a GPZ. I do.

Thanks for the report, Lunk. That's really great. That's 2.2 lb lighter than the GPZ with same coil size. That's really not bad. I guess the 14 DD will be better at small shallow gold and the Super-D will trump in depth.

Completely agree with that. Strict coil control is always your friend!

Hi Gold Hound. Of course you can use monoloops anywhere with good success, including Australia. I was just merely suggesting that when directly compared to the Super-D GPZ 14 a similar or bigger size monoloop might struggle a bit in highly mineralized ground, hence giving the GPZ a depth advantage for example in areas with "old soil", like in Au. It even says it in the 6000 draft manual that top performance of the 17 inch can be expected in less mineralized grounds. This could be a planned strategy to not eat into GPZ territory for conditions where the GPZ14 inch shines. But I am sure we will get to the bottom of this once the 6000 is released. So much still (healthy) speculation.

That's something I am most interested in. How does the SDC/ 8 compare with the 6000 / 11? I am a SDC lover (like you :)) and will put this to a hard test. Regardless of outcome, SDC will remain always in my fleet! The 14DD I find interesting for it's reported EMI/conductivity cancelling. This will be a great comparison with the GPZ14 in respective tough grounds.

We all shall see when we start testing the 6000. The GPZ14 is an excellent and balanced coil and handles saturation remarkably well. I was just echoing what appears to be common knowledge about pros/cons of mono loops in general. Bruce Candy's ML write up gives an excellent perspective on that in case you want to have a look. But as Northeast said, perhaps there is some secret sauce that is coming with the 6000 that will change the game 🙂

Do you have experience with the Coiltek 15 on the SDC? I like the 8 because it's just perfect for small gold with the MPF timings. Just wondering how this would translate to a larger mono loop. And then of course there is the 6000 11 in /17 in mono loop performance anticipation...

I was referring to the fact that it is a monoloop. Only in low mineralized ground a big mono will have an edge in depth. In mineralized soil, they don't perform that well as the DD or Super-D. "The magnetic strength to cause noticeable saturation to a sensitive metal detector depends on the magnetic chemical. Most of the superparamagnetic particles found in the goldfields require intense fields to cause saturation whereas, ironically, some more benign mineralised soils saturate more easily, and thus may cause worse spurious signals than the highly mineralised goldfields. Double-D coils are excellent for suppressing the effects of near-surface saturation, whereas mono-loops are poor at this. Thus, this saturation can most easily be noticed when using a mono-loop coil as one “pumps” the coil up and down, causing varying field strength in the soil"

I wonder how the 17 mono will perform in mineralized grounds. Most gold bearing grounds are mineralized, so probably not much of a competitor with the GPZ14. Perhaps more intended for African deserts? GPX 17 Mono The GPX 17 Mono coil is the top choice for covering large areas of ground quickly and efficiently. It is the top performer when searching for large deep nuggets in less mineralised ground. Like all monoloop coils, the GPX 17 Mono is susceptible to noise in conductive ground or when there are high levels of EMI.

I think the GPZ screen could be more robust. It easily scratches. Also, the backlight is not sufficient. It's hard to see the display at times, especially with cover on. This would be two points I would find worthwhile improving.

I can highly recommend the Iridium Sat Phone. It has reasonable monthly plans and let you call anywhere in the world, from anywhere. Works even from deep canyons. https://www.iridium.com/products/iridium-extreme/