jasong

Awesome. What age is that helmet, is it like Roman or Hun or something? Are they in Russia or more towards like Ukraine or Romania or something? 

Natural. Looks like a basalt porphyry. It came from a lava flow, it's vesicular. The white crystals (fancy geologic term: phenocrysts) are probably some kind of feldspar. Basalt will vary in color, reds/browns, etc. 

So there is probably some old lava flows somewhere nearby from which this originated, or being on the ocean it may have been discarded ship ballast.

I'd lean quartz, but calcite can look very similar from photos, I've even seen sugary texture calcite in the field that fooled me until I scratched it with my hammer.

Scratch with a screwdriver or knife tip to tell difference - calcite will scratch and quartz will not. 

6 hours ago, Champ Ferguson said:

hey jasong; are you a geologist/rockhound?

Just a prospector on paper. I do it for a living though. 

Based on the setting, it's not citrine or something low $. It's also pretty massive to be something really rare like yellow sapphire or yellow diamond. Maybe heliodor, but color seems off.

Just taking a wild guess based on the setting, size, and color I'd say topaz. But again, 100% guess. Cut stone ID is not my wheelhouse at all. 

6 hours ago, Champ Ferguson said:

I agree with jasong and am also interested in hearing more about the interior.

I'm very unfamiliar with New Jersey geology (or anything East Coast really), but that looks like the type of ironstone concretion you typically find in sandstones to me.

This is simplified, but generally the way these sorts of sandstone concretions form is somewhere in a soil/rock pore, a seed crystal precipitates out of iron rich solutions (maybe just rain percolating down and carrying dissolved iron, or a spring, or a whatever else). Usually it's in soils that later turn to rock, and so larger pore spaces are not uncommon, so you can get fist sized or larger concretions. That initial seed can keep growing, or the environment can cause the minerals to change slightly. Later, the older seed crystal can act as a nucleation site for newer mineral saturated waters, these may contain slightly different minerals since the ground above may have changed over time, and you might get a new ring of slightly different ironstone as a result. 

The interior of this concretion is the earlier stage, and it appears a later stage occured causing the slightly different outer shell material. But that shell may also just be a weathering rind or chemical alteration too, not sure.

Sometimes concretions have a "seed" that is organic - like an ammonite or a leaf. And often you can find fossils inside concretions if you crack them open. This concretion pictured is just a mineral concretion though, and might be formed more along the lines of the process that often happens in sandstones called Liesegang Banding. 

That's about all I can say from a photo. 

4 hours ago, Tom T said:

The mill is a “Mighty Mill”, I only run it a couple seconds to pulverize just about anything to powder, because it’s powered by a cheap angle grinder from Harbor Freight that spins at about 7,000 rpm. Looking at the balls, they look like they were fairly spherical before they were released from the rock because they all have small indentations which I would expect. The rocks were found (I was told) in woods creek in Jamestown Ca. Just west of Sonora…. The graphite photos are interesting… 

That's an impact mill. They create little balls out of anything malleable because it will not powder and thus just roll around inside as the chains push them around. I've run many tons of gold ore through impact mills, it all comes out in sphere even though it's definitely not spherical in the ore.  

Graphite is brittle (naturally occurring stuff anyways) and is not a metal. The chances of it emerging from an impact mill intact that was run long enough to crush quartz/feldspar butnot powdered a graphite is close to zero. You flattened it with a hammer too which means it's malleable. Put a propane torch to one of those spheres for 15 or 20 seconds and see if it melts, that's where I'd start. Lead should melt within that time frame easy. 

Are you sure someone didn't shoot the rock with a shotgun while aiming at a bird or something, and there was lead embedded in/on it? That rock looks like a diorite, and as I mentioned earlier, it's not really a typical ore.

I would try to eliminate lead first, and then go from there.

What kind of mill, impact mill? If so then the mill itself will turn anything malleable into tiny bb-sized balls as a result of the chain/flail rotating everything around inside. Seem like lead from your description.

Is that rock really pinkish or is that the lighting? Looks like some kind of diorite, but it's usually not pink unless it's real high in feldspars, and I'm not sure what sorts of ore minerals occur in that type of rock. It doesn't really look like typical ore though. 

El Nino showed some pretty interesting tests with the ATX a while back with some good results to small nuggets. Minelab is Minelab and they do what they do. But I'm curious if there is a reason Garrett isn't doing exactly this revamped 4500 idea with their ATX package - updating it with a bit better performance/noise handling, better coils (or allow for NF/CT ML coils use), and throwing it in a better, lighter case, lighter batteries/shaft/etc and tossing it out for $1500 or something as a market shakeup - surely the ATX itself can't be making a ton of sales as is? Wasn't that Steve's original idea years back, or something similar? Is the ATX too close in performance to the Axiom if it were updated?

A lot of tech disrupting companies price their products at losses to gain market share, with the idea that the short term losses will be outweighed by the long term gain in customers. Not saying either company should sell at a loss, but it seems like the detecting world is not taking advantage of some aggressive and/or strategic marketing tactics that could be employed. Maybe it's just not worth it in a decreasing market like gold detectors where the long term is in question?

Once you have dies or molds built already, and research done - nothing costs that much really. It's all arbitrary pricing, and price gouging in the case of $10,600 GPZ 7000's and $6000 GPX 6000's. They are obscenely overpriced. An updated, lightweight 5000 tossed into the existing 6000 form factor should cost about $1250-$1500 MSRP and still have enough profit for manufacturer and dealers to sell, using existing tooling.

Woody did a total cost breakdown video on a 4500, component by component (the newer 4500's supposedly were just 5000 boards with the numbers scratched off according to him), and I think it was like $150-$200 including aluminum case extrusions, or something like that, to manufacture. 

It doesn't help that in the US, a large amount of the buyers of these machines historically - at least from my observations in the field - are largely retired persons with a lot of disposable income and an attitude that price doesn't really matter if fun is being had (aka - the "fishing boat" analogy you can find posted in the past). I can't even count how many people I've met who've found maybe 1-2 ounces in their lives happily paid $10,000 for a GPZ with no expectations of paying it off. Combine that with the fact that a ton of people for whom price would matter are friends with dealers who give them very, very deep discounts - often at or near dealer cost, and so the complaining about price is largely reduced to a few people who don't have the disposable income, don't have dealer friends, or simply are tired of prices being ridiculously high on general principle. These people aren't numerous enough to force change. And there isn't enough competition to force change either. Thus - price gouging. 

At this rate, someone may end up stumbling into the prize "equivalent" just by inflation adjusted pricing, after enough time passes. According to BLS.gov $2000 in 2017 is now worth $2500 in 2023.

Of course, in 2017 the intrinsic value of a gold detector was also higher than it is right now since there was more gold left to find. So it still kinda feels like $2000 would be a correct value. 

Iron/ironstone concretion

Looks like some kind of iron concretion and some differential weathering/erosion happening. Or maybe manganese coating or something like that. Whatever the case, not a fossil, though occasionally concretions contain fossils inside them. 

Some use hammers to build houses, some try to smash a screw and pronounce the hammer worthless. 

AI is no different from any tool, there is a right tool for right job, and useful output depends highly on the way its used by the operator. Same reason some can find more gold in a day with a $500 detector than others can find in a year with a $10,000 detector. There are hundreds of ultra useful AI tools, imagination is the only bound on how to make then useful for prospecting and research among other things. 

As for ChatGPT specifically, it's development on new versions is halted right now - rightly so - by OpenAI as some regulatory and ethical issues are explored first. But it's definitely not yesterday's news. I used it and a few other tools to build be an entire online business in 3 hours. Hammer a screw in and you'll just get a bent response though. 

We had one of these last year. It's road stripe paint with reflective glass beads in it. 🙂

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

No. Not just success but survival means getting on a faster product cycle just like we see with other manufacturers. The sit on old product for a decade formula does not work any longer. But in my opinion it is multifrequency Garrett needs to get serious about and fast, as they are left in the dust on that at the moment. The Axiom 2 can come later.

From what I gather reading posts on some of the other subforums - don't most people feel SMF VLF's have sort of already reached a wall? I have to admit my ignorance here as I just don't follow them very closely. But I'm curious if there is much room for expansion there if it's already a mature, crowded product space?

A lightweight GPZ competitor for an affordable price would have no rivals or peers though. Granted, probably a much smaller potential customer base though. But the space is wide open right now due to Minelab's delay - same as it was pre-6000. 

I'm of course biased because these gold detectors account for like 95% of my detecting currently so I definitely want to see new ones even though I know the market for other stuff is better. And I understand coins/relics are a much, much larger market. But it seems like the time is kinda now or never for a competitor looking to enter the scene for something like a GPZ competitor? We aren't quite at the wall yet here as there are some easy improvements to make that ML declined to do on their own (coils, weight, namely). I am struggling to justify trying a $4k Axiom since I already own a GPZ and 6000, but I'd probably hop right onto a $6k lightweight ZAxiom. If another GPZ comes out first though - I'll be right back to where I am now struggling to justify trying one. 

4 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

It is a shame in one way though. If Garrett had come out with the Axiom a year before the 6000, instead of the other way around, it would have shook the detecting world. Honestly people, take the 6000 out of this equation, people would be falling all over themselves to get Axioms, even in Oz. Minelab simply beat Garrett to the punch, and in doing so stole the wind from their sails. But that does not take away from what Garrett has done here, which in my opinion is be the first US manufacturer to make a PI nugget worth mentioning as a real option for at least some people to that offered by the Minelab monolith.

Do you think Garrett is done with the top tier gold machines now, out of curiosity? I don't know if it's feasible due to patents, but given what seems like inordinate delays from the last GPZ release, seems like Garrett could have a chance to beat Minelab to the punch with a lightweight GPZ competitor that many of us have been waiting ages for, and thus holding off purchases of a more lateral move like the Axiom. 

I guess maybe another problem is there isn't enough money in it with nugget depletion's inexorable march forward though to justify the R&D though even if it were feasible?

9 hours ago, phrunt said:

Maybe other environments I don't have around here it handles better than other detectors like some really bad or salty soils.

Yeah, in wet alkali soils (common in the US) the 6000 does notably better than the GPZ. Part of that is the smaller coil though, but it still does better in wet alkalis than the GPZ running a 12" coil too.

The fact that no one really knows what Geosense is kinda shows the point I was making about it being too opaque of a detector in the other thread, none of us know what's happening, why or when. For general use it's not a big deal I guess, as long as it's finding gold and fun is being had. But for those who need or want to know what they are missing, why, and when, it's not really a good thing. 

1 hour ago, PhaseTech said:

You sure you were both in Difficult ground setting? 

Do you have a different result with the 17"? I wonder if there are large variations in quality/construction if so.

My experience was a little less demonstrative than Simon's, but the same general conclusion. Both 17's I've used seemed to have less sensitivity in terms of both size and depth than I would have expected for a coil of those dimensions. I never touch mine. My 11" on the other hand, has been my favorite OEM coil ever (usually my OEM's go directly in the closet), even though I know other's have had a lot of issues with them.

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

Manual leaves Geosense enabled, and it's what's causing the issues Jason is describing I think.  Manual is just the sensitivity adjustment isn't it?  I don't think it's related to the other "automatic" functions of the GPX.   I would much prefer my GPX if it had some reasonable level of manual control beyond sensitivity, I'd love to disable ground tracking on it in my mild ground.

Right, that's how it feels to me too - It adjusts sensitivity in "manual" too at least around heavy EMI, and it seems to stay adjusted even after a reboot - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's hard to know what's happening. Ground/iron part of Geosense seems to adjust back quicker? It's the unpredictability and opaqueness that has made me change my mind on the 6000. It's a good detector, don't get me wrong. I  just never know when it is good, and when it isn't, and that's the problem I personally have with it now. Is it only happening 1% of the time? 50%? No clue, it's totally opaque. There needs to be a "gauge panel" for users to see what setting is at what level, if we are going to have these automated controls - I'm writing that directly to any Minelab engineer reading this more than to any other fellow detectorists.

I'm actually all for Geosense style auto modes, I think they could keep improving it too. There is a time and place for them. But like Simon said, there needs to be manual overrides too. 

I'm curious if the Axiom does this too behind the scenes, or it's true manual? The people like myself who love to ramble on about the tiny minutia of detectors and equipment all seem to be quiet on this release, to my frustration as I keep coming here hoping to see a nitty gritty comparison between the Axiom and the 6 and leaving hungry. 😄 If it was cheaper (like, market shakeup less expensive), or not such a potentially lateral move, I'd be tempted to do it myself just because I am missing having a detector I trust 100%. 

Things like ground and EMI handling can make all the difference in some places. Also, the 6000 suffers from auto adjustments in an opaque way that makes it impossible to tell if it's adjusted down or failed to adjust sensitivity back up, and this in my experience has caused a number of instances I've missed what should have been some very easy targets. I have no idea if the Axiom does this auto adjusting too, but to me it's a deal breaker in a machine the way the 6000 does it after I've used it and understood it more.

If I was choosing between the two right now I'd personally try an Axiom just to see for myself. I personally feel the 6000 is a subpar detector for both EMI and opaque auto adjustments, it does ok with ground but I suspect based on reports the Axiom does better. For weekend detecting or working small areas it probably makes no difference though. Where it makes a difference is covering 50 square miles of land and then wondering at night if you need to go redetect weeks worth of work because you can't trust if the detector was running right or not, that's incredibly annoying. 

If it didn't seem like the next GPZ had to be on the horizon I'd try an Axiom just to see how it does in field and experiments. Been tempted numerously to buy one just to see then inevitably figure the 6000 will be good enough until the GPZ. Too expensive for an experiment at this point it seems, as I'd rather replace the 6000 with a light weight GPZ if such an option presents itself, which at this point may or may not even happen and is looking less likely, who knows...

"Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist". - Picasso

Aphorisms like "dig it all", "low and slow", etc are good for people detecting club claims, heavily worked areas, old patches, etc. For those detecting a wide range of different environments and doing exploration, it's often more about figuring out when and where to break the rules and how to adapt to changing, new environments in order to maximize yield (aka - your total gold take per unit time spent). 

3 hours ago, GotAU? said:

@jasong - I would have called it magnetite.  Is it a possibility?  He could streak test it.

Quickest test for magnetite is just putting a magnet to it and seeing if it's attracted.

6 hours ago, Joel - cacadordereliquia said:

Friend, thanks for your help, could you tell me where you have this type of material, there may be a larger gold nugget, or just fine gold, because they say that it comes with the gold. Is the gold on the surface of the earth or in a deeper place, 2 to 3 meters below the ground?

It changes by location/environment. Sometimes the presence of sulfides mean that the gold is also locked up in  the sulfides themselves (and not in nugget form or large enough to be nuggets). But then other times it doesn't - I optioned a mining project to an exploration company where my initial discovery was a large series of stacked quartz veins containing chalcocite, and those same veins also had visible gold in them, a short distance away there was some large pocket gold which was discovered using a metal detector. The bonanza grade gold was all surface or near surface occurrence.

The only way to find out is just to swing the coil over the area and see. 🙂 Doing some sample panning, looking at the ore under a magnifying loupe, maybe cutting a few ore samples to get a fresh face to magnify, these can helpful to know if free gold is showing up or not to begin with.

4 hours ago, phrunt said:

The need for the PI depends on mineralization and hot rocks, if they're not an issue I wouldn't bother with the SDC 2300 as the VLF in milder ground will do well for a lot less money and find smaller gold.

Simon's comment there would be the #1 determining factor in a machine for me, if I was getting one for working bedrock.

Working hot basalts and serpentines or magnetite laden areas? PI 100%, wouldn't pull my hair out with a VLF in that terrain. Low mineral granites, gneiss, sandstones? 800 or 900 would be my first choices - looking at one or the other of those right now for working non-river bedrock/lode zones.