steveg

Yep, you are right. Probably letting my excitement cause me to jump the gun a little bit... :) I will have to wait patiently for some more information... Thanks! Steve

No doubt, Tim. Totally agree with both you and Steve, that if a machine finds coins that are "shallow," but that other machines miss due to trash density, it is worth standing up and taking notice. Again, though, my HOPE is that this unit can do both -- essentially, an improved "Deus" when running single frequency, and an improved "Explorer or E-Trac" when switching into multi-frequency. If it can do both of these things, then it's a big-time game-changer for me... Steve

Steve, I saw that comment from Brandon Niece, about his CTX being relegated to "second tier." I wonder what context he used that in -- ability to hunt in iron, or ability to ID at depth? Or, both? Which leads to the larger issue. I totally agree with you about FBS's weakness being recovery speed in trash, and the Deus (and other similar units) weakness being target ID, especially at depth. This is why -- just as you said about your trips to Hawaii -- turf coin hunters need (at least) two machines, or -- at least HAVE needed two, up until now. I also totally agree with you in your last paragraph, discussing how there is "more going on than just sheer depth." Absolutely. And yes, the Equinox will likely "slay the CTX in dense trash." I totally agree with you. But, the problem is this -- the Deus, for example, also "slays the CTX in dense trash." YES, that's a very important part of coin detecting -- dense trash hunting. But it's only HALF of it. Depth, and ID with depth, is the "other half," and it's why my Explorer is, thus far, far from being "obsolete." To elaborate further...obviously, I am hunting public spots that have been HAMMERED, for the last 40-50 years. The cherry-picking of easy, old coins is largely over. If you want to find old coins in the vast majority of public spots, as I see it you have to be either A.) better at hunting "deep" than the other guys have been, or B.) better at hunting in thick trash (especially iron, where coins are partially masked) than the other guys have been. Ideally, you should be able to do BOTH of these things better than those before you. And yet, to do BOTH of these things, it has required two different machines (and, of course, two different skill sets). I already ACCEPTED, as you have, that the Equinox will have the "hunting in trash" part well-handled. That's why I was primarily focused on the "depth/ID at depth" issue. Ideally, what I would like would be NOT to simply replace my "fast recovery, better at hunting in iron and other trash" machine with the Equinox. I would like it to replace BOTH -- my Explorer included. And so, since I am already convinced it will be a great machine in trash, I am MOST interested in the "accurate ID at depth" part of the equation. If this machine can hunt in iron like a Deus, and at depth like an FBS unit, then I am ENTIRELY SOLD. But, this is where I remain skeptical...I have to see this machine meet or exceed FBS (or hear it from trusted sources) before I believe it. THANKS for your reply! Steve

Hi, all. I haven't posted often, as I really don't do much gold hunting with a detector. I have a friend who has a few gold claims in Colorado, and on occasion I will accompany him, swinging a machine on the bank while he dredges. That was the reason I originally joined -- trying to learn to use a Gold Bug Pro in that environment, from Steve and others who are truly "top notch." However, I'm primarily a coin hunter -- specifically, old, deep coins from largely hunted-out public spots. For this task, I am very strongly convinced (through experience) that the very best machines available for that application are Minelab's FBS/FBS2 machines (Safari/Explorer/E-Trac/CTX). Reason being -- they have UNPARALLELED ability to accurately ID targets (visually, on screen, and audibly, through their multi-tonal output) -- through the entire depth range of the units. The FBS machines are not necessarily the DEEPEST machines, in terms of "raw depth." BUT, they are unmatched with respect to their ability to ID targets all the way to the fringe depth capability of the machines, in a variety of soil types. They accomplish this with a degree of accuracy that no other machine I've ever used/tested is capable of. SO, my long-winded question is this, for anyone "in the know." The "multi-frequency mode" on this machine is NOT FBS, it is apparently called "Multi IQ," and is being called "state-of-the-art" technology. My question is -- SPECIFICALLY as it relates to deep, old coin hunting in turf -- WILL THIS UNIT'S MULTI-FREQUENCY MODE EQUAL OR EXCEED the performance we Explorer/E-Trac/CTX users get from the FBS platform, specifically as it relates to accurate ID through the entire depth range of the unit. I absolutely LOVE the "rest of the package" here. User-selectable single frequencies, lightweight, wireless, prospecting mode, waterproof, fast, etc. -- but for me, the KICKER, the one thing that will push me over the edge, and finally cause me to lay down my Explorer, will revolve around the performance of this unit in "multi-frequency mode," as this is the mode I'd use most often for my style of hunting. Can anyone give me the straight scoop, at this point, on this SPECIFIC aspect of the machine -- Multi IQ technology? If not at this point, then anyone who eventually tests this unit and is permitted to comment at a later time, I'm all ears... Steve

Keith -- EXCELLENT video! VERY interesting. A question...I have a Fisher Gold Bug Pro right now; the one thing I like about the AT Pro and Gold are that they are waterproof -- thus no worries when hunting in the rain. But -- that's not enough of a reason for me to switch machines at this point. In your opinion (Keith, or Steve, or whomever else has used both), is there any advantage to me switching from the GB Pro to the AT Pro or AT Gold in terms of performance in iron? I will be doing only rare/occasional gold prospecting with the machine; occasionally, I'll use it for coin hunting in a park-type setting, though usually that's where I use my Minelab Explorer. Most often, though, where I use the Gold Bug Pro now (and where I'd use the AT Pro or Gold) would be in a relic site, trying to unmasktargets in the dense iron, along the lines of what you are showing in the video here. Is there any advantage to the AT Pro, or the Gold, vs. the Gold Bug Pro? I think these units all do alot of the same things; that being said, one of the best "iron hunters" I know personally, hunts with the AT Pro and he does REALLY well pulling non-ferrous targets out of thick iron. He continually impresses me when we hunt together; some of it is his many more years of experience as compared to me, but I wonder if the machine gives him an edge over my GB Pro, as well, in terms of unmasking... Thoughts? Steve

Two nice-looking machines, right there... Christmas presents? Steve

For what it is worth, Rick, my experience is that I lose a good bit of depth on my GB Pro when running in discriminate mode. In my "test garden" with buried coins, I find the "usable depth" difference is around two inches on a dime-type target, between all-metals and discriminate mode. I have a sense that perhaps the depth loss is not quite as great on a low conductor, between the two modes, but would have to re-test to be sure (my testing was done when I first got the unit a couple of years ago). I'll be interested to see if you find similar results in your testing. As Steve H. mentioned, in all-metals mode, you do have ID information available from that "simultaneously running disc. mode," but -- as he said, you do lose that ID information on a deeper target (one that is easily detectable in all-metals mode) which, again, reflects that "depth loss." No surprise here, I'm sure; just wanted to toss that out there FWIW. Steve