steveg

I would be happy to work with you on the purchase of a shaft! Let me know if I may be of service. Thanks! Steve

Thank you, sir! I appreciate the kind words! Steve

Tom, I don't know why the "snark" is necessary, in your response my post; I was genuinely trying to be helpful for your friend, not "making excuses." If there are install problems, that others have mentioned, where a glitch occurs (unstable machine after updating), and then a full factory reset and then re-install resolves the issue, I don't know why you'd imply that your friend would not appreciate the suggestion. I will say one last thing on this topic. I have a test garden, that's been buried for 10 years now. When I got the CTX, about 3 years ago, I tested it thoroughly against my Explorer. Obviously -- similar to what you and your buddy did when comparing targets -- I was taking a KNOWN target, and comparing it...first, with the Explorer (which at the time was my "go to" machine) and then with my CTX. I knew quite well how each of the different coins in my garden tended to react, when the Explorer was run over them (I ran the Explorer -- and many other units -- on these targets MANY times). In my garden, I know which of those coins are "tough targets," which ones are on the very fringe of detection, and which ones you MIGHT get a chirp from, but is NOT a "diggable" target if you were "in the field." What I concluded, was that no matter what settings I adjusted on the CTX, it was nearly identical, in terms of depth capability, to my SE Pro. I could not get it to trump my Explorer, depth-wise. THEN -- I got an Equinox. By this time, my last Explorer had died, so the CTX was my "go to" machine. But -- as I said -- I knew the CTX to be very nearly identical, in terms of depth capability, to my Explorer (which I had used for about 7 years prior to getting the CTX). SO -- I then tested the CTX and Equinox head-to-head; obviously, very similar to what you and your friend did, I compared the two units to known targets...I knew the depth of each target, I knew the coin type, and I knew how it "behaved" when detected by various machines. And what THIS testing revealed, is that my Equinox is roughly 1/2" to 1" DEEPER than my CTX (and, by extension, my SE Pro). This was testing on multiple buried targets (including silver dimes, quarters, and wheat cents). Finally, then, over the course of a couple of months, I did the same type of head-to-head testing IN THE FIELD. I'd find a deepie with the CTX, and then grab the EQX, and interrogate. And -- confirming the test garden results -- the EQX would give a slightly clearer/slightly more "diggable" signal on the targets as compared to the CTX. These results -- in central Oklahoma dirt, anyway -- were gathered using the very same type of "testing" that you and your buddy did. And the results are MUCH different from what you report. And for the life of me, I can't understand why that carries exactly ZERO weight, in your mind. I COULD say that yes, it may be such that your California dirt renders the EQX less capable than your Explorer (as opposed to my Oklahoma dirt). Obviously that's a possibility, but then you have Raphis -- a very long-time, very talented detectorist to say the least, confirming that the EQX is at least the equal of his Explorer in CALIFORNIA dirt (although, not specifically San Fransisco dirt). I don't know, Tom...hard to figure why you have such a hard time putting any weight on the experiences of others...BUT -- we've had this discussion before. I know it doesn't have any influence -- but it's all good! Steve

Tom, One thing I have heard anecdotally -- and I can't imagine how/why this could be the case -- but I've heard from a few folks that when they have installed one of the new EQX updates, they find the machine to suddenly be extremely unstable -- and so they end up doing a "restore" or "reset" back to original settings, and then re-installing the update, and then things work properly. Based on what you are saying, I have to wonder if a "reset" and "reinstall" might be worth a try, on your buddy's machine. What you describe, just does not sound normal. Oh -- and one other thing -- he will NEVER "spank" you, if he has to keep his sensitivity down due EMI. I know this is kind of obvious, but perhaps especially so with this machine. While the EQX does quite well on "fairly deep" targets at lower sensitivity levels, sensitivity over 22 (I think that is the number) is where I believe NASA-Tom Dankowski has stated that the machine really begins to "shine," in terms of maximum depth (almost like a "boost" process, if I recall correctly?) So, if he has EMI problems -- at that site, or any other that you hunt -- and he combats it by lowering sensitivity (which, of course, must be done sometimes to fight the EMI), then he'd be handicapped (since you are hunting only for the ultra, fringe-depth targets). NOT that there's much else he could have done, but hunting a site where the EQX's sensitivity needs to be kept in the teens, is NOT a fair fight in terms of putting it up against FBS and hunting for the fringe-deep coins. I rarely hunt the machine below 23 or 24 sensitivity, unless absolutely forced to, by EMI...since I too (as you know) spend a good bit of my detecting time hunting those "fringe depth" old coins that have been left behind by others... Steve

Sounds like they work fine; I was pretty sure they did, but it's good to get confirmation. Steve

謝謝你的客氣話。 我很難運到中國，因為運費很貴（大約65美元），而且我想您也必須支付進口稅。 我們還有必須克服的語言障礙！ 如果您想和我談談這個問題，請告訴我。 可以通過steve@stevesdetectorrods.com與我聯繫。 謝謝！ 史蒂夫 Xièxiè nǐ de kèqì huà. Wǒ hěn nán yùn dào zhōngguó, yīnwèi yùnfèi hěn guì (dàyuē 65 měiyuán), érqiě wǒ xiǎng nín yě bìxū zhīfù jìnkǒu shuì. Wǒmen hái yǒu bìxū kèfú de yǔyán zhàng'ài! Rúguǒ nín xiǎng hé wǒ tán tán zhège wèntí, qǐng gàosù wǒ. Kěyǐ tōngguò steve@stevesdetectorrods.com yǔ wǒ liánxì. Xièxiè! Shǐ dì fū

Tom -- glad to see you here, as well! I sure hope Raphis and you find a time to get together. If you do, make sure you FILM this duel; it should become a classic, like the shoot-out at the OK Corral... 😉 Steve

Dan -- Wow! You have no idea that forum exchanges that Tom_in_CA and I have had (mainly over at Dankowski's forum)! I was relatively experienced (about 8 years) Explorer SE Pro user, who switched to a CTX when my last SE Pro died, and then purchased an Equinox right when they were released. My plan was -- after learning the EQX thoroughly -- to use the EQX as a quality backup to my CTX. But, in the process of committing the time to learning the EQX, it -- though I didn't expect it to -- proved itself to me to the degree that it has become my go-to machine. And not JUST because it does a bit better in iron/trash, but because in my dirt, it is JUST AS DEEP (if not a tad deeper) than FBS, and thus allows me to "deep silver hunt" just as effectively as FBS does. But, Tom -- ever the skeptic that he is -- REFUSES to take me at my word, no matter how hard I tried to support and justify my position. The only way he says he'll ever believe me, or anyone else, and even CONSIDER setting down his EX II, is if I "spank him" (his words) in a "detecting duel!" He REALLY wants that "duel" to occur; I'd love to oblige him, but I live in Oklahoma, so not real practical. But -- NOW -- since you have, and understand, your Equinox, maybe YOU are the guy to accept his challenge?! Steve

Bingo, Chase. This is the first thing I thought of, as well... My guess is that this is something that will be utilized in some way, on the Equinox 1000/CTX 4040... And, it sounds like our fearless leader feels the same way... Steve

Just a few thoughts. I am pretty sure Minelab has taken FBS as far as they intend (i.e. FBS2 being the final "refinement" of that platform), with "Multi-IQ" now being the new simultaneous multi-frequency platform from which the next, future "flagship" VLF unit will be produced. SO, from that angle, what I'm really hoping for is a EquiCTX 1040 -- i.e. something with "Equinox DNA" but CTX-type features (target trace, 2-D screen, CO/FE numbers, etc.), plus any new refinements that may be on the drawing board. Just like FBS "evolved" from the Explorer to the E-Trac, and then became "FBS2" with the CTX, I'm hoping that this next flagship will bring some of the best of the CTX and Equinox together, into kind of a top-end, Multi-IQ2 type of machine. This, plus some more flexibility with coil selection (or possibly allowing third-party companies like Detech, etc. to build aftermarket coils) would be something I'd LOVE to see! Steve

Rod, Thanks for the confirmation, on the top one. I thought it was a Matron Head. I wasn't sure on the bottom one...so thanks for the keen eye! Steve

Thanks guys! I didn't get to hunt near as much as I had hoped, on this trip, but what hunts I was able to squeeze in, were great, in terms of the finds! Thanks! Steve

Thanks, guys! Yep, there aren't many large cents that come from Oklahoma; that's why I love digging in PA so much! Steve

GB -- thanks for the kind words! As for cleaning, if I think a coin I have dug has ANY chance of having any numismatic value, I won't rub/clean it, in the field. I may soak it in water, etc., but won't clean it until I look it up to check value. However, it is SO rare for a copper coin that's been in the ground to come out in good enough shape to retain any numismatic value, that usually don't worry about rubbing the copper coins. I am more careful with silver... Yes, that piece with the pie-wedge shape is interesting; I believe it is gold plated (don't think it is gold), but not sure WHAT it is. There's no shank on it, so I don't think it's a button. I am puzzled by it... The piece in the top left is some type of a game piece, that you spin like a top, and then there is lettering on each of the "facets" (i.e. take one, take two, etc.) The large piece top right, is some type of a printing plate (thus the reversed letters). It says "Good food costs less, Baked with DAV..." and then the rest of the letters after DAV are obviously missing. There's a dog tag from 1903, a bunch of flat buttons, and all the pieces at the bottom are from two separate lanterns. Thanks! Steve

Still on vacation back home in PA; I got out for my last hunt of the trip Sunday, with my friend John. We had a good day, digging at an old site; the pictures are of my old coin finds, and some relics (flat buttons, lantern parts, etc. etc.) It was a really nice day (until an afternoon thunderstorm ended our hunt), and was great to get out to a nice spot with a good friend. (I can't get a date from either of the two large cents; the V nickel is 1884, and the IHPs are 1872, two 1886, and a 1903).

Chase -- I hear you, LOL! This weather is ridiculous! I try to leave this weather behind, in Oklahoma, when I come up here to visit in the summer. Somehow, it followed me here! I'll see if there's a way we can hook up in the fall, for sure. I look forward to it... Steve

GB_Amateur -- I am going to try and give a bit more info about my opinions on iron bias (I mentioned earlier that my Recovery Speed 2 was a typo -- I was set on my normal Recovery Speed 3, during that hunt). My idea on the iron bias, is that after hearing detailed input from Tom Dankowski, who was instrumental (from a design perspective) in having the new "F2" iron bias scale implemented in the Equinox via the most recent firmware update, I knew I wanted to give the "minimum iron bias setting" a try. While that may not be the best setting for a newer detectorist, NASA-Tom is adamant that if you "ease your way into" lower and lower iron bias settings with time, and let your ears do more and more of the work, that there is "intelligence" built into the Equinox's audio that will allow you to learn to decipher the iron "falses" from the true high-toning non-ferrous targets. Armed with the information that IF one uses their ears carefully, giving oneself time to learn, that it is not only possible, but likely, that one can learn to do a BETTER job of indicating which targets are iron and which are non-ferrous using your EARS, instead of the machine's algorithm, I decided to try it. After updating the machine, I went pretty much straight from FE=0 to F2=0 (I made the transition over a couple of hours' time, during the course of a single hunt). And I must say, after several months of running F2=0 exclusively, I fully agree with NASA-Tom's premise. It is extremely hard to explain/describe, but I feel that I have really learned how to decipher what the machine is telling me, when hunting for non-ferrous targets within sites littered with rusty iron. I am unable to put it entirely into words; it's just something that with experience, and careful listening, you can begin to almost "intuitively" identify what targets are just iron masquerading as a possible "good target mixed in with iron," and which ones are ACTUAL good targets, mixed in with the iron. I wish I could explain it more clearly, but I can simply say that for me, F2=0 allows the USER to learn to make an accurate diagnosis, instead of letting the algorithm try to do it for you... My advice is to try it, and give it the necessary time (digging lots of targets, of course), and see if it doesn't "click" for you, the way it did for me. Steve

Thanks, gents! Much appreciated! Cal -- I hear you, LOL! What I wouldn't give to dig a gold coin! Chase -- I'm still here, for now, but this is a relatively short trip; I'm hoping for another one this fall, and that one might allow me a bit more detecting time, than this one... 😉 Steve

GB_Amateur -- SORRY! Recovery speed 2 is a typo. I was hunting with Recovery speed 3. I used to use 4, but have moved to 3 and that's now what I use any time I am old/deep coin hunting. More info to follow later, on the iron bias questions... Steve

Thanks, Happa! Steve

Mike -- thanks! Yep, I did finger the half dime during the day, smiling each time, LOL! Yep, I'm sure it's the same feeling for me as when you dig a good ring (though yours are -- in terms of dollars -- much more valuable!) Thanks, Dan! Digging Seated coins never gets old; living in Oklahoma, there are very few; most of the ones I dig are during trips to PA, and I enjoy every one of them! GB_Amateur -- I was using the EQX 800, Park 1, recovery speed 2, F2 setting at 0, sensitivity 25. Ground balanced (at 11 on this site), and noise cancelled (though there was very little EMI -- hence the ability to run the sensitivity maxed out). There are a fairly large number of scattered square nails, and various blobs/chunks of old rusty iron, left over from the former/burned church, so lots of high-tone falsing that needs to be worked through very slowly. There is not a ton of undergrowth/vegetation here, as it's a fairly mature section of forest with tall trees, and thus the canopy blocks enough sunlight to minimize vegetative undergrowth. The obstacles are largely a thick layer of fallen leaves, and a ton of old logs/branches laying around, plus scattered tiny saplings -- overall resulting in a difficult hunt in terms of coil control. And of course, lack of coil control means more falsing, etc. -- so it's not an easy site to hunt. The half dime was roughly 4" to 5" deep, the large cent probably 6" or so. It's hard to determine depth much of the time, since the underground root matrix (and the dry soil we have right now) means popping a plug is impossible. The dirt crumbles, and trying to get your shovel back out of the ground, through all the roots, means most of the dirt falls back in the hole, and thus there's no telling where the coil originally laid, in terms of depth. Anyway, there is a layer of organic material/topsoil a couple of inches thick in most places on this site (deeper at times), and then a layer of relatively dense, yellowish clay mixed with shale, just underneath. So, the coins I've dug here are generally not all that deep, impeded by the clay/shale layer. The half dime was generally reading about 20 to 21 in the ground, though there was some iron nearby so some low-tone grunting was mixed in. I had to clear out the leaves, and a nearby log, to achieve enough coil control, to confirm if the target was indeed non-ferrous, or if it was a masquerading piece of iron. The large cent rang higher in tone/number of course, but again with iron around, it was a jumpy-ID type of target -- lots of numbers in the upper 20s, and bouncing into the mid to upper 30s, but then plenty of iron grunts mixed in. Neither coin was a nice, clean target, in terms of tone/ID. Sounds like you have a great site to check out, hopefully soon! My advice is -- sweep SLOWLY in this type of site (this minimizes iron falsing, with the square nails, which for me are much more difficult to deal with than regular modern nails), and when you hit what you think is a possible non-ferrous target, work it carefully and analyze closely -- listening very carefully. Rotate all the way around, vary your sweep speed over the target as you interrogate; kick away some grass/dirt/leaves from over the top of the target and re-sweep, seeing if the tones and ID numbers change, etc.. In other words, employ all the "tricks" you can, to discern whether it's non-ferrous, or ferrous trying to ACT "non-ferrous." But once you feel it's non-ferrous, DIG. I dig almost ALL suspected non-ferrous targets on those types of sites, because there are usually surprises... Hope that helps! Steve

Thanks, 2Valen! The second one is a Braided Hair Large Cent, 1839. Thanks! Steve

This is why I like vacationing back home in Pennsylvania! 🙂 I only dug two coins today, on a two-hour hunt at the site of what used to be a mid 1800s church, but is now just forest, and a small, old, adjacent cemetery... --Steve

I know some of my customers have asked this question, but I have not tried the supports myself. Maybe someone will chime in... Steve

Phillips_R -- THANKS! 🙂 Bash -- that is some terrific news; I just LOVE to hear that! A full days' swinging, and your shoulder being relatively happy? Makes my day! 🙂 Steve