Gold Catcher

I still wonder though why a 12 in coil was chosen as the first model and not a 10 in one. It appears from all the feedback that a significantly smaller coil is the biggest need for GPZ users. Next to weight reduction and a bit more sensitivity, this would be the biggest buying reason for many. The 14 in stock already is a very good coil, so perhaps something that you absolutely can't do with that size coil would convince most to pay top dollar.

8 hours ago, VicR said:

Currently there is no competition for Minelab in the elite gold detector category so i cant see them pricing the GPX6000 the same way as the Equinox which has numerous competitors. In my experience when you have no competitors in your market segment and you are offering a unique product you can command at least 20 to 30% more than if you had direct competition

Excellent point. And in the elite gold detector category, Fisher is just not anywhere close to a match. The ML brand is so established that I doubt that even if another manufacturer would create an equally high-end/quality/performing detector it would be a thread to ML, not even at a much lower price. Detectorists trust ML to give them the biggest edge in the filed. This trust is worth a premium for most. I bet that if you would analyze all YouTube video's that show gold detecting you will find >90% ML detectors being used. This is a brand advantage that you can't easily beat.  

Given the current situation and the high demand I doubt we will get these coils to the US anytime soon. I guess I have to move to Au...

1 hour ago, Jonathan Porter said:

You ever had a day when you just can’t do anything wrong? 

Haven't had one of those in a long time...Awesome, JP!

Great example of how General can give a better response than High Yield for deep targets. I usually use HY as my default gold mode, makes me wonder if I should use more General instead. General still seems to be good at shallow gold but captures more depth, so perhaps a more balanced overall mode? I noticed though that in General the threshold is less stable than in HY.

I could not agree more Gerry, well said!

If you look at Fig 2 of the patent (see my earlier post) it does refer to some sort of memory function provided by GPS  when you come back to a spot that you have hunted previously. Well, anyhow, we all shall see. Don't we all love the rumor mill and mystery around ML, almost like what the presents will be for Christmas. ML always has surprised us with big technology leaps. That's why I think they just dominate the detector space with no real competitor. I guess I have to start scraping money together for the 6000 release...

28 minutes ago, Jonathan Porter said:

I prefer it if there has been a few thunder storms to wash away all the tyre tracks and footprints, the myriads of patterned phycological evidence that beta-blocks the feeling of success right out of your very soul before you even start the first swing of the coil.

As long as those would not be your own footprints, you have nothing to worry about! Quality always trumps quantity. Awesome finds, as always 🙂

The question is, if you already have a GPZ, would this new GB method be a convincing argument alone to buy the 6000 as well? Assuming coil options would be comparable for both machines. 

5 hours ago, phrunt said:

As long as they leave manual settings there for those that insist on using them, rightly or wrongly then it should be a good feature

That's exactly what I think. Most GPZ operators use semi-auto GB. Here, the machine already does a lot of automatic adjustments anyhow all the time with just the X being locked. So, why not having a supercharged version of it? Kind of cool if the GB algorithms factor in locations and remember the ground conditions where you have been. For instance, If you revisit spots where you have already been then the machine remembers the old algorithms and has a better way for further fine tuning, with less dependence on how the operator handles the machine. It might overall give you an edge in the field, since it all comes down to how to make a target stand out better.  As long as you still have manual GB, as you say, I am all for it. I like to use manual at times to not track out faint targets when I zoom in on them.. 

It appears to be a new ground balancing method by implementing locations determined via GPS

Very nice! My early GPZ days were much less successful. I think my first one I found was a sub 0.1g piece and it made me all excited 🙂 

Very well done, thanks for sharing

I still think it will all come down to performance. Is the ZSearch really so much better than the 14 in stock? (aside the 300 g weight loss)

Let's see if it is really so much better than the 14 in stock that would warrant that expense. The size difference clearly is not differentiating much.

Good point. Ideally, a machine that has high performance for all applications would be best.

Agreed, $1300 (Au $ I suppose) is a steep price. I guess our Au friends will have plenty of time to test it in depth and post reviews before it even would become available here in the US. Then we shall see.

I think to drive innovation and to come up with a differentiated product you need to focus on the primary intend of the machine. Gold machines and relic machines are just not the same and are not on the same path when it comes to new product cycles. Sure, you can use the GPX or GPZ for relic hunting or for whatever else you want, but when it comes down to performance enhancements over existing products in a highly competitive market you need to look at the primary customer base and what they are using the machine for. And for the 6000 that appears to be the gold freaks 🙂

GPX6000...

I think it all depends on what you are using the detector for. The GPX series, as well as the SDC and GPZ, are traditionally intended to be pure gold detecting machines. Relic hunting is not the primary focus . Hence, for gold-only hunters like me, everything else than gold is your enemy (unless sliver or platinum..). I suppose the GPX600 will also be a pure gold hunting machine, and this is what this thread is about. But Mitchel makes a good point, the findings you show are amazing and absolutely worth a separate thread 🙂

16 minutes ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Great post and and answers already provided.

Just wanting to clear up a few things.  My Settings are totally backwards of Lunks, but yet we both do much better than most and we are actually pretty close on nugget hunts/counts.  He might get a couple extra than I on one day and then I'll do the same the next.

Proper Coil Control is MOST important and we both are spot on.

Sweep Speed - This is an interesting one as Lunk does sweep slower than I do (all the time).  Even when he's looking for new patch, his sweep speed is slower than me.  

I adjust my sweep speed based on the situation (as most folks should do) and when looking for Patches, yes I am faster than Lunk.  When hunting a site we have hunted before, I feel I am still faster than Lunk.  Now put me in a small wash I know there is still a few pickers left, and I could spend 20 minutes in a 20' long by 8' wide wash.  I go much slower at that time as I am also scuffing every little broken/change of the threshold.

Here's what I tell the customers at Rye Patch.  If you know nuggets have come from a certain wash, it is best to slowly and methodically work it and not worry about covering a lot of ground.  You are better off to go slow, keep the coil on the ground across the complete sweep width and only worry about how well you cover that piece of ground, not how much ground to cover than day.  

If you are in an unknown area, (driving down the road and see some good looking terrain), you make a decision to test it, then going so slow as mentioned above, is not as beneficial, so I would swing faster and cover more ground.

Here is where Lunk/I and most other well known and Successful GPZ users stand.  We all have found hundreds of nuggets (some of us thousands) and we have trained our our bodies, coil control  and ears to hear a certain signal and nothing but time and experience can do that.

I'll use a simple example that might make sense:

2 guys fishing side by side with same rod, same line, same bait and one guy catches trout so easy and the other guy can't seem to catch even 1.  The guy catching the trout knows the feel of a slight bite vs the bait hitting the bottom.  He has perfected his skill and all the other guy can do is watch, listen, ask questions, learn...and if he keeps at it, the 1st of many will happen.

You are on your way to great things, as long as you don't give up on yourself...and continue to perfect your skill.

Spot on Gerry!!

All good points. Everybody has their own way of detecting styles and that is the beauty of it. Amazing actually, the GPZ seems to make philosophers out of their owners, me included...I don't think any other detector comes even close of doing that 🙂

Oh that sucks! I hope this did not happen in the middle of nowhere. Good luck with the GPZ. Btw, try out the swing arm. It makes all the difference for coil control and detector handling in general. I use it all the time without exception. I keep the clamp low on the shaft close to the coil.

1 hour ago, Chase Goldman said:

lead is gold

Then I am rich!! 🙂

I stick to JP's mantra: full range of motion swing (but slow) and strict coil control. The full range of motion coil swing has actually helped me greatly and I always try to remind myself of doing that. I have missed targets by not allowing the coil to sample enough ground to make the target stand out. Shallow targets give often a high/low response with double dip, whereas deep targets often give a low/high response with some lead time, meaning that the coil could already have passed the target) a the response is being generated. It's a SuperD, so the highest sensitivity are the two vertical lines on the coil (where the two receive D-loops are)