mh9162013

I've never undersood the policy reasons for not letting treasure hunters get a percentage of the value of what they find. They only reason I can think of is that if something belongs to an owner, it always belongs to them unless some law or legal theory says otherwise. So I guess that b/c Spain owned the coins when they were lost, and no subsequent legal decision changed that, the newly found coins had to go back to Spain. But if that reasoning is correct, didn't the article say that the coins were mined and minted from South America? In that case, shouldn't the current countries where that silver and gold came from be the "rightful" owners of the treasure? But I suppose that's opening up a whole 'nuther can of worms, given the level of imperialism and colonialism that many, modern-day nations are arguably guilty of. Here's my proposal: If you're a treasure hunter looking for a specific treasure, you take reasonable measures to contact the actual or possible legal owner(s) of the treasure. You let them know what your'e trying to do. They can either tell you: a) "good luck" and go ahead and keep what you find; b) "good luck" and give us a certain percentage of the vaue of what you find. c) "I hope you have bad luck" but if you find anything, we get to keep anything you find. If the owner elects for option C, you either: continue your hunt for the treasure and do it in secret so in the chance that you find it, you get to keep all of it. Or, you tell the owner, "ok, fine, I'm going to go look for something else, then. You enjoy hunting for a treasure where you not only don't know where to look, but you forgot existed until I brought it up." As you can see, with option C, everyone loses. So it's in everyone's best interest to come to some sort of agreement on how to split the proceeds from any discoveries. Kind of like how the UK does it with certain treasures found on public and private land.

If I understand what you're getting it, it seems like that until the signal processing software is improved. it doesn't really matter how fast or efficient the processors are.

I'm trying to figure out if getting the 5x8 coil and keeping the AT Max is worth it compared to just getting the Equinox 600 and using its stock coil (at least in terms of hunting in trash). Short of putting in several dozen hours comparing each setup in real-world conditions, I have a feeling this nailboard test might be the next best thing. I'm prepared to do use Monte's Nail Board test. But it'll take some time away from hunting and I want to make sure I'm not missing some setting or factor for the test that will essentially nullify my results. Here's the deal: The AT Max's advatanges with ruggedness, use of AA batteries, S-shaft design and coil selection are the equivalent of the Equinox's advantages of more stable VDIs and more accurate VDIs at depth (to me). However, the AT Max's advantages aren't enough to overcome the potential Equinox advantage of being able to hunt through trashy conditions better than the AT Max, even if the latter has the 5x8 coil.

I know that Monte's Nail Board helps create a standard for anyone and it's this standardization that I hope to take advantage of when comparing my AT Max to an Equinox (and comparing my other detectors). I know it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, in my opinion. I'm also mulling over how to create a test garden in my back yard. I haven't done so yet b/c I can't properly create a good "soil profile" that has the less mineralized dark soil on top and the heavily mineralized red/brown/yellow-ish clay below that. But I'm beginning to think despite these flaws, having just 1 clad dime buried at 4/6/8 inches in my red clay would still be better than nothing when comparing different detectors. I've never hunted a ghost town, but many of the places I hunt have trash near the surface, too.

In most places that I hunt, depth isn't an issue. There's just so much trash within the first 1-3 inches of the surface, losing out on depth is less of a concern for me. Now, in my own yard, where I know there may be some good, deep targets, yes, I want depth. But for most parks and private permissions, I'm realizing that getting depth doesn't mean much if there's so much trash, I sometimes skip ground balancing b/c I can't find any clear ground.

If I do my proposed tests, I'll see if I can post my results here.

Thank you for your insight. Here's a question for you: AT Max with 5x8 coil versus Equinox 600 with stock coil: which do you think finds coins better through typical park and yard trash?

I got in a few hours of metal detecting yesteday with my AT Max, which included some time at a park and a few permissions (private homes). Nothing of note was found, although I continued to struggle with trying to find good targets in high-trash soil. Given how I'm using the Garrett AT Max, I know have two primary options for finding good targets (silver coins) in these types of conditions. First, get a smaller coil, like the 5x8. Second, start digging the trash targets to clear up the ground and reveal possible good targets that are being masked or otherwise "overshadowed" by all the bits of aluminum, nails and other garbage. The second approach is not a viable option for most places I hunt (parks and private permissions). Not only do I not have the time to implement that strategy, my body can't readily handle that much digging. Also, I'm pretty sure digging almost everything is bound to lead to the loss of any good graces I have with property owners and park maintenance crews. Ok, so that leaves the first option. But before I go that route, I have to concede the possibility of getting an Equinox. Based on my experience with my Vanquish, limited time on the Equinox 600 and experiences with my AT Max and Fisher F2, I'm confident that one of the advantages of getting an Equinox will be more stable VDIs and more accurate VDIs at depth. And right now, I think I can live with that. I understand that getting a solid signal (a good, repeatabe signal from both swings and in 2 directions) on a dime or quarter at 6+ inches in my mineralized soil isn't always realistic with the AT Max. But I know the AT Max is at least capable of getting a decent signal (a good, repeatable signal from at least 1 direction and in 1 swing). Put another way, I get how the AT Max may not get me the "dig me!" type of signal that an Equinox can, but I at least need it to get me the "take a closer look, please" signal. All of that to say that I'm thinking about how my AT Max's target separating ability and recovery speed limitations (using the stock coil) will compare to an Equinox 600 and a stock coil. I came to this realization when running the AT Max with only iron discrimination set at 35 resulted in information overload for me and notching out everything below 70 was likely leading me to completely miss "take a closer look, please" signals that might lead to silver coins, dimes or quarters. Therefore, I want to use Monte's Nail Board. I know it's not ideal, and I plan on using Steve's approach of using both the AT Max and Equinox 600 on real-world targets. But I think the Nail Board will offer quantitative data when comparing the AT Max and Equinox.I also plan on using it with my Fisher F2 and Vanquish 340 to help put things into perspective. So how do I go about doing this test? Here's my approach so far: Step 1: Create Monte's Nail Board and use it with a modern, clad dime and new nails. Step 2: For each of the 4 passes, I will give it a rating: Will Dig, Maybe Dig, Won't Dig. Step 3: I will set the sensitivities at either 50% or the highest possible given EMI Step 4: I will run each machine with zero discrimination and with enough notching so that it's only going to sound on dimes and quarters (and maybe copper pennies). Step 5: For the AT Max, I will also test it with iron discrimination set to 35. Step 6 (maybe): Run the test with the AT Max using both its stock and 5x8 coils. So here's my first real question: what changes or additions would you all make to my current approach? My second real question(s): what "base" setting should I use with the Equinox 600. I'm thinking Park 1 with recovery speed set at the highest setting (3?) and a small or moderate amount of iron bias. Should I also run some tests with the Equinox 600 in 4KHz mode? My third real question: would it be benefitical to modify Monte's Nail Board so that the nails are replaced by either clumps of aluminum or maybe pulltabs? A lot of my hunting is in parks and yards that are often littered with more aluminum trash than iron trash. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks!

But if that's the case, a much faster processor can compensate for slow code or inefficient algorithms, right?

But during bankruptcy proceedings, don't companies have to take warranty claims into account? But even if that's the case, perhaps doing this with a bankrutpcy judge or trustee overseeing the debt reorganization is better financially for the company than not going into bankrtupcy...

Oh, I can completely relate to that sentiment. I used to work in a field where most people were ignorant to how it worked and would often scoff at certain results that they didn't understand. I imagine that applies here to me and my understanding of metal detecting design. I'm all ears to learning more about what I'm missing and the challenges engineers face.

I've heard this before, and I am inclined to concur with this sentiment. But I have a question that you and maybe some others here can answer. Wouldn't another way to make a significant advancement in metal detecting technology, without creating a new type of technology (a la MIQ, FBS, BBS, etc.) is simply speed up the processors in metal detectors? I've read countless times how FBS and BBS are slow. Or how even older "flagship" detectors aren't as fast as an Equinox or Deus. But why? Do Minelab's FBS/BBS detectors or Garrett's AT line of detector require such high end CPUs that simply speeding up the processing ability is cost or design prohibitive? Imagine an E-Trac, Safari or Explorer II with a max recovery speed of say...an Equinox on a 4 recovery speed setting. With NOTHING ELSE CHANGED, wouldn't this be a massive improvement that could result in a jump in the popularity of those older machines? This same question applies to a Garrett AT Pro/Gold/Max or other similarly situated or capable machines. I'm no metal detecting engineer, but you'd need a CPU upgrade, plus a few other chips, I imagine. Power usage would go up too, but this could be offset with newer battery tech (like a built-in lithium battery *gasp*). Then you'd need to rewrite its programming too. But all of this is doable for a reasonable cost...or maybe not? Is what I'm describing not happening becuse of business or engineering considerations? Maybe I'm misunderstanding how metal detectors work, which wouldn't surprise me. So I'm open to being instructed on what I'm missing. But it's my current understanding that a major limitation of older machines isn't just their limited discriminating ability (compared to SMF tech), but also their target separation ability. For example, let's say a Fishr F75 with a stock coil can "see" an iron nail and silver dime as distinct surface targets as long as they're 2 inches apart. But due to the physical limitations of the stock coil, the closest the nail and dime can be and still be seen as 2 separate targets is 1.25 inches. Then why hasn't Fisher boosted the processing power of the F75 so that it can see the nail and dime when they're say...1.33 inches a part? Going from 2 inches to 1.33 inches in target separation/recovery speed improvement would be a dramatic boost to the F75's performance, would it not? It would easily make the F75 competitive again in locations it had to yield to machines like the Equinox. I guess what I'm saying is, metal detecting companies don't have to develop MIQ's replacement to create another great detector. There are ways to dramatically improve current VLF technology (without adding bells and whistles) to still make them competitive machines today...right? TL;DR: If you have a sailboat and want more speed, you don't need to develop steam power. But maybe designing a clipper ship would be a viable option.

But this issue (in my eyes) isn't how Minelab should handle the coil ear problem. The issue is why it became a problem in the first place.

I don't think it's as much of a design failure as it is a failure of Minelab's management. Engineers are probably asked to push the envelope when it comes to reducing weight of coils. However, once it became known the original design was insufficient, why didn't a redesign take place? That was probably management's call, not the engineers'. Personally, I think that the engineers knew all along the original design wasn't ideal, but management told them to shut their mouths and do as told. Maybe Minelab/Codan has a few executives that used to work at Boeing? But even if I'm wrong and Minelab's design team screwed things up, it was still management's call when it came to how to deal with this coil ear issue.

I hope you're wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me if you're right.

But FT did this, to some extent when they released the F44. No, it's not as capable as a T2 or F75 (and its variants), but for the average metal detector consumer (not us), it's a roughly comparable version to the basic Simplex or AT Pro. I do think a waterproofed (or weatherproofed) T2/F75 with wireless and a few tweaks could have sold better than the F44. But would they have sold enough to warrant the R&D costs? I'm guessing FT's powers-that-be concluded the answer was no.

My thought is that it may not be that Minelab's sponsoring them, but rather, Garrett's no longer sponsoring them. But then again, they've often claimed to not be sponored by Garrett, and perhaps they weren't...at least directly. But going to Garrett events as VIPs, accessing new machines before most people, being in Garrett literature, etc. are forms of "sponsorship" whether the Hoover Boys are willing to admit that or not. Imagine if Kurt's face shows up on the box for the Equinox!

Huh, I wonder why that is? Cool Smokey token, by the way!

Apparently, yes. I don't know how or why, but Minelab has some reason for handling coils the way they do...right?

I mostly coinshoot with my AT Max, so I'm definitely interested! But I wonder if the AT Coil will work for the AT Max? Garrett says all (or most?) of their AT coils are interchangeable among all 3 of their AT detectors. But as for third party coils, they can't say for sure either way. NEL says their AT Pro coils won't work for the AT Max. But according to metaldetector.com, their AT series coils seem to be largely interchangeable among the Max, Pro and Gold.

But the price for a new pod is so cheap, it costs less money overall to just buy the new pod, then buy a new coil.

Me too! If they're going out of business, I need to stock up on Tek Points or F-Pulses...

Do you know that for a fact? I heard (rumor) that metaldetector.com simply bought out Fisher's last remaining stock of the F5, and that's what they're currently selling. However, the F5 isn't being made anymore. I could be wrong and you could be right. Just curious as to the basis for your statement.

Ivan's story doesn't surprise me one bit. This isn't to say Minelab is shady when it comes to warranties. Rather, it's my "default" belief that when it comes to warranties, they're often difficult to take advantage of (in general). So when a company drags its feet concerning a contractual obligation, I assume that's the norm. Again, not saying Minelab does this. Just saying Ivan's story sounds believable, especially considering Minelab's spotty customer service record (at least compared to Garrett). Assuming Ivan's story is true, my guess is that the second time his unit failed, Minelab assumed customer misuse. And if Ivan were to take advantage of the warranty again, any denial is probably Minelab's "I dare you to sue me. Go ahead, hire an attorney or file some pro se Complaint in court where you have to spend a few hundred bucks in court fees and lose a work day just to recover a few thousand dollars, at most." Again, not saying Minelab would do this, but so many other companies do this, whether it's a computer company, insurance company or car manufacturer. I know for a FACT that at least some insurance companies do this. They recklessly adjust an insurance claim and only pay out 60 cents on the dollar and dare the policyholder to file a breach of contract or bad faith insurance lawsuit.

Every few dimes or quarters I dig will have a pinkish-redish "coating" on them, similar (if not identical) to the coins Jeff showed. I figured it had to do with fertilizer, weed killer or a "stage" in the coin "aging" process.