Gold Catcher

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

41 minutes ago, Norvic said:

Yeah I use an Inmarsat Sat Phone,

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

I am wearing snake gaiters all the time, came in handy a few times already! Also great for pokey cacti, as he says. What actually worries me the most is when I am on my knees digging. Eye to eye with a Mojave green and that could be the last thing you ever see...

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

Thanks for brining this up, Jennifer. It's an important topic. I always carry my Iridium Sat phone with me and also have a Garmin Inreach Explorer with the tracker always on. Both devices are linked to IERCC, which is a global rescue organization. I pay a small fee per year but it would cover emergency rescues that could easily be >> $50k. I know this all cost a bit, but it gives total peace of mind.

https://www.iercc.com/en-US/

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

The question to me is what this detector will bring to the table. For 6000 and 7000 owners (like me) what has this detector to offer that I not already have?

GC

On 7/14/2022 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Porter said:

Next person who tells me it’s just the effing FLU is going to get a JP style ground balancing!!! 😡 

Sorry to hear JP, I hope your recovery will continue steadily. Yes, unfortunately too many people are in need of a good ground balancing, along with some education. Preferably in semi-auto so they won't drift over time.😉

GC

14 hours ago, RONS DETECTORS MINELAB said:

The Motherload's Sierra foothills have a pretty good year around climate ideal for detecting, a lot less people to contend with and a huge amount of mining districts. The downside is lots of private ownership until you get farther into the higher Sierras', then your dealing with the winter snows as mentioned before.

Spot on. The traditional motherload belt is virtually off limits for prospecting due to high urbanization, state and private land ownership, tons of regulations and a miner hostile crowd. In addition, there is a huge amount of claims in those areas that are still open for prospecting. The higher Sierras, i.e. Plumas national forest, still has options for prospecting and there are certainly others as well, but you need to know exactly where to look, and it often requires hiking into steep canyons and difficult terrain and driving on suicidal roads. And yes in winter most of these areas are not accessible. I would probably choose the Mojave desert in the Randsburg mining district. During the summer heat you could then consider the nearby San Bernardino mountains and also Big Bear. So, I would choose So Cal, also due to it's vicinity to AZ for the non-summer months. This area also is not crowded at all. The entire stretch along the I-10 east towards the AZ border also has rich and vast gold fields, including the remote Chuckwalla Mountains, which are practically completed deserted (and forgotten about by most-not me though 🤠). Also, the Dale mining district and the Pinto mountains are right there as well (only July - Sept the heat is really bad).

GC