Glenn in CO

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

 

Be adults, take responsibility, sort it out, and leave the BS to the YouTube drama brigade. Count me out! Just call me an old man in second childhood, having the time of his life, having fun with new toys. Meeting and hanging out with fun people from Garland, having some people pay attention to what I have to say when making a new detector…. life is very good my friends. Whether anyone likes the Axiom or not, I just don’t care. I like it, and that’s good enough for me. Peace, and best wishes to all of you!!

 

 

Sage advice Steve and I wish people who give reviews on new detectors would do the same. Looking forward to your tips and techniques on the Axiom and hopefully show us some of the gold you find.

2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I admit I read this thread with a degree of satisfaction, and a feeling of being vindicated. As a prototype tester I put out a very early report on the GPX 6000 trying to tell U.S. operators only (not Australian users or X Coil users) exactly what is now becoming accepted as fact. And that is, for the average U.S. user, especially new buyers, the GPX 6000 is a better value than the GPZ 7000. Despite my clearly stated caveats, however, I got enough blowback from the very people I was exempting from my commentary, that I pulled all my reviews and information on the 6000. I did finally post them again about three months ago, once the heat died down.

I must say that the quality control, and therefore all the problems people have had with the GPX 6000, have been very disappointing. The fact is most people do not have issues, but so many do, including quite a few people that I know and respect, that it has taken some shine off what should have been a truly excellent release by Minelab. Were it not for the issues that plagued some people, a lot of the pushback would not have existed. We hear "yes, it does find gold, but the problems......" far too often.

Still, the Minelab GPX 6000 for me is a joy to swing, and literally paid for mine in two days last fall, on the kind of gold the GPZ 7000 is weak on, and that I had been over and missed with the 7000. Again, because of the grief I was given, I did not post about any of my GPX 6000 finds last year, but it has left me with a hole in my Steve's Mining Journal last year, that needs to be filled. So I will finally get around to writing that up and posting about it soon. Thanks Gerry, and everyone else posting on their GPX 6000 success, for making me feel more like saying something now, than I have this last year.

A few ounces of GPX 6000 finds from the Mother Lode country.....

Absolutely incredible specimens you found Steve - well done!

Gold found in in Pima County, Arizona.

There's still BIG GOLD NUGGETS in Arizona!

That large nugget will clean up real nice, congrats on a outstanding find! 👍

Nice gold! You show how researching and dedication can pay off.👍

33 minutes ago, Ogliuga said:

Glenn, if you want to try a good program to use on strong mineralization try with program n. 2 with disc 5, audio response 4-6, iron volume 5, reactivity 1-3. I don’t say in the video that Ground Stabilizer is on 1 and it’s very important for depth. I did a program based on prog.2, the name is Focus1. On low conductors buried in mineralized soils it’s very good. Just come back from the hematite area which is about 9 miles away from my home. This is the first test I’ve done on mineralized soil with v07 firmware. Focus 1, please name it what you want, is the same but with threshold because it uses Pitch tone which is performing on high mineralization without putting too much effort into the machine...less than PWM and maybe less than square as well. Now threshold works. I took the liberty of giving you some advice because, unluckily, I have to live with the mineralization problem and this is why I have pulse inductions as well.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWzY4g8vx0

 

 

Thanks! I will give your suggestions a try.

8 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

I don't think one site was more mineralized than the other because the results flipped in different ways for different detectors (i.e., Nox beat D2 at one site and it was just the opposite with D2 beating Nox at the at the other hot soil site with the performance difference between D2 and Nox being about an inch...weird). 

Interesting! Thanks for the insight on the performance between the Nox and D2. Hopefully others who have both machines will chime in with their experiences.

6 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Glenn - still trying to figure that out.  It depends on my primary target of interest (e.g., High conductive coins versus mid conductive jewelry, relics, or nickels), my depth objective and how much modern and ferrous trash is present.  Right now, if going as deep as possible regardless of target type, Deep HC is my go to.  Followed by Relic and then General.  I adjust reactivity consistent with whatever separation is needed, but keep it no lower than 1 to limit ground feedback.  I’m partial to pitch tones but will often switch between pitch, full, and 5-tones to interrogate targets and for dealing with modern trash (e.g., can slaw reveals itself better in full tones).  I tend to avoid the ferrous filters (BC reject, silencer) but do use disc (between 6 and 10 in pitch and multi tones, and between -2 to +2 in full tones (FT), though I may change that FT disc now that 0.7 has incorporated FT iron volume). I set IAR to 5 in Relic mode.  I may change my philosophy on no ferrous filters (BC reject, silencer) based on the ver 0.7 tweaks to those filters.  Basically, it is still a work in progress.  With this approach I demonstrated reliable target ID on a minie ball target down to about 7.5 inches in Deep HC with full bars showing in the mineralization strength meter.

Thanks for your input and suggestions. I'll try these and see if I can come up with a combination that will work in my area. It would be great if I can get the Deus II to ID around the 7 inch depth area, as it is a lot easier to swing than the TDI. 😄

1 hour ago, Chase Goldman said:

Ground ID on Deus does not necessarily correlate at all to ground mineralization level.

Yep. Thanks.  That is moderately mineralized ground alright.

What would be your go to program for high mineralization and modifications if any to that program to try.

11 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

More importantly,how many bars were displayed on the mineralization strength bargraph (see inset on the pic below)?

Six bars.

12 hours ago, Denny said:

What was your ground I. D. 

It was 87.

Having the XP Deus II for few weeks and becoming familiar with the different settings and programs, I decided to test the Deus II depth capabilities in a nearby local park. Our soil here in Colorado is high in mineralization and VLF detectors struggle in achieving any depth on coin size targets beyond five inches. To help aid in locating a deep coin, I decided to use my White's TDI. With the White's TDI I can set up the detector to only hear high conductor targets and then cherry pick targets by listening for a deep soft audio response and ignore the shallow surface audio response.

When I located a potential target I turned off the White's TDI and tried the different stock programs of the XP Deus II to see which program would worked the best. Only two stock programs in the Deus II could I get any good response. The relic and goldfield programs gave a strong audio response, but gave no consistent VDI on the target. All other programs I could not get any type of good audio and/or visual response. The ground conditions were extremely dry and I don't know if that had any affect on the XP Deus II.

The coin was a wheatie and was at a depth just beyond six inches.

I found three other wheaties and had the same results. After locating and retrieving each target I put the coin at the bottom of the hole, replace the dirt and plug, then I tried the stock programs again and I could then get a good audio and TDI. I did change some settings such as sensitivity, reactivity, etc. and didn't seem to make any difference on the coins that were found.

Any suggestions, advice or thoughts, especially why I could get good target responses after reburying the coins?

Too many to chose for a favorite!

Chicken

Fish

Ram

Dog

Dinosaur

Spaceship or guppy

Triangle

????

Alien

4 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:  I don't know if there are any coin/relic/beach detecting hardcopy mags left that are printed in the USA. 

American Digger is a great relic magazine that is available in print.

On 3/23/2022 at 2:48 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

I had a chance to observe a D2 with 11” coil recently, and overall was impressed by what I saw. Seemed just ok on mid to low conductors, but excellent to superior on high conductors. Decided to get back on the order list based on what I saw, thinking it may do better than I thought on silver in my parks. That in mind I switched from 9” to 11” coil, as I’ve decided other units will do better on gold, especially nugget detecting, and that was main reason I wanted the 9” coil, as alternative to 6x11 nugget coil. But for deep silver, I’m thinking the 11” has the edge.

What I did not like was lower rod movement that seemed far in excess from what I remember on my two previous Deus 1 units. Less the rod itself, then slop in the cam lock mechanism. Not sure, but my previous impressions were the XP S shaft was the best of the best. This one… barely ok out of water, and I’d think a disaster swinging in water against resistance.

Anyone else seeing this, or is it a problem isolated to my buddies detector?

Steve, when you get your new XP Deus II and put some hours on it, I hope you do a review as other detectors you have done in the past. Looking forward to seeing it if you have the time. My Xp Deus II with the 9" coil is delivering this Saturday and curious to see how it handles the mineralization we have here in Colorado.

16 hours ago, rvpopeye said:

  

Just one would have been nice.

The group is impressive fer sure ,

I like the way the first one looked like it was squirted from squeeze tube.🖖 

 

What's interesting about these gold specimens is they maybe similar in character, but like snowflakes none are exactly the same. Here's a few more:

8 hours ago, Valens Legacy said:

That is some nice looking gold, was that from last year or this year.

Good luck on your next outing.

The gold specimens are from previous years. The finding, cleaning and seeing the end results is the most enjoyment part of the process, the cataloging and photographing can be tedious and time consuming at times. I could skip the cataloging and photographing process, but when you sell to a buyer/collector and no longer have them, I want something I can look back on and relive the memories of finding them.

The weather the last couple weeks where I live in Colorado has decided to remain cold and snowing leaving very little opportunities to go detecting even though spring is just around corner. I usually take this idle time to catch up on cataloging and photographing gold specimens that I’ve cleaned. Here are some recent examples of mother nature great works:

If so, will it be in September. Planning upcoming trips and would like to attend this one.

Great to hear you out detecting again, 24 nuggets in 7 days would be outstanding trip for me. Like to hear more on your exploring tips on how you decide on areas you want to detect. Thanks for sharing,

1 hour ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

I enjoy a variety of MDing styles which keeps me on my toes with different detectors and models.  To me, "golden find" a term and has many meanings.   I'd like to share some of the Golden Memories I was able to make in 2021 while enjoying my metal detectors with many friends in different states.

2021 is finally over and even though there were many restrictions and some negative in our lives I did manage to escape on occasion and enjoy what I've been doing for near 50 years (metal detecting).  Here's some of my better digs while on adventures with friends as we shared laughter, made cool discoveries & great memories. These are my besties of 2021. Best Nugget, coin, ring, tag, Railroad, space rock, silver day & non metal eye find. 

May the 2022 year bring your recover tool many treasures of golden memories.  I hope to see you share with us all on Detector Prospector those precious treasures and memories about to be made.

Let's see your Besties of 21.

Very nice finds, looks like a very productive year for you. May 2022 be as good or better. Thanks for sharing!

Unfortunately the detector I wanted for Christmas isn't available yet, fingers crossed maybe next month?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.

5 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Cleaning specimens is always a gamble and I have to admit, you have the system down pretty well.  One thing I'm missing.  The before and after weight are messing with me.  Before was 55 gram and the cleaning lost 5 gram, but now the finished product is 28 gram.  Did you mean the before was 35 gram?  Either way, you have a winner on that one my friend, well done.

Hey Gerry I hope you have recently been on some great nugget hunting adventure that you would wiling to share with us as a holiday treat.

The gold specimen in its natural state with the host rock and limonite weighed in at 55.1 grams. So there was 5.57 grams of gold that fell of the specimen as the acid dissolve the host rock and limonite. There is a small amount if host rock left in the specimen to help stabilize and keep the specimen intact. So the amount of gold that fell off and the gold remaining on the cleaned specimen totals 34 grams. Without doing a specific gravity test I would guess the total of all the gold would be around 31 to 32 grams and 22 to 23 grams of host rock and limonite.

Happy Holidays to you and your family!

5 hours ago, Aureous said:

Looks a lot like Electrum, rather than JUST gold. If so, it would be worth a sh*tload more $$. But it could be just the type of acid process you used, that makes the gold look pale.... still an awesome result 👍

The location where this type of is found has a high silver content. Unfortunately when I take a photograph I must use low light because of the gold specimen has a highly reflective surface and will wash-out the photograph and you would not see any of the detail. This gold specimen is a combination of wire and crystalline gold and commands high dollars from collectors.

6 hours ago, Valens Legacy said:

Did you clean it with CLR or another chemical?

Over a four week period I used Muriatic Acid, Whink and CLR. The first three weeks I used Muriatic Acid, then Whink for four days and then CLR for three days.