Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 


Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database



Everything posted by Tahts-a-dats-ago

  1. In reflecting upon all that I am thankful for, I realized that this forum (and the members) justifies specific mention. Thanks to my fellow forum members. I have learned a lot from you and am grateful that you share your knowledge. There are a few members who I wish to specifically thank, but the list is far from complete and my thanks extend to all members. Chase Goldman - Thank you for your willingness to respond to questions, your extensive knowledge, and your desire to help all of your fellow forum members. Geotech (Carl Moreland) - Thank you for explaining the technology behind metal detectors, and giving us an inside look as to what it takes to create and build metal detectors. I wish you had the backing necessary to bring all of your ideas to market. I also wish I had the ability to fully comprehend the technical aspects. Dilek - Thank you for your passion, for your willingness to directly engage customers, and for listening. I wish every manufacturer had a Dilek in their executive staff. Steve Herschbach - Thank you for all that you do to provide us with this amazing opportunity to learn. Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge, all that you do to answer questions, explain things, and teaching us how to be better detectorists.
  2. That sucks. I hope you have the serial numbers written down somewhere. You might want to keep a watch for your items on Craigslist, FB marketplace, Offer up, etc.. (in addition to Ebay and pawn stores).
  3. Whether Minelab's "obsolete" statement is arrogant or pompous will likewise be a point of contention (among metal detecting enthusiasts) for years to come. To be honest I think the statement was both arrogant and pompous, but that isn't really the point behind the statement. Is it an accurate statement? In the sense that single frequency metal detectors are still widely used - no. In the sense that even Minelab itself states that there are benefits to single frequency - no, the statement isn't accurate. In the sense that the market seems to be moving toward simultaneous frequency machines - yes, the statement is accurate. And I would expect that trend to continue - until new technology begins to replace it. But that isn't the point either. Minelab's 'obsolete' statement was marketing genius. Sure it was a bit off-putting to many, but it did exactly what it was intended to do: draw people in. The metal detecting community was both outraged and intrigued, and all attention was on Minelab's product. In a way I'm reminded of the "New Coke" release back in the 80's. At the time it was roundly criticized as the mistake of the century - a complete flop in every sense. It was Coke's response to Pepsi - which had been tearing huge chunks out of Coke's market share (Pepsi outsold Coke - in the US - in packages; Coke still dominated in syrup). People started hoarding the regular Coca-Cola and New Coke brought plummeting sales to Coca-Cola. Soon Coca-Cola responded by introducing "Original Coke" back to the market and Coca-Cola market share began to skyrocket. Coke quickly reversed Pepsi's gains, and dominates (to this day) the cola market. Coke's move was controversial. Most claim it was a horrendous error. I'm convinced that it was a calculated example of genius marketing - one that quickly put Coke's competition in the rear-view mirror. To a lesser extent I think Minelab's statement was another example of a calculated marketing move - one that worked brilliantly.
  4. Is it possible that a higher frequency coil would not have the SMF performance of the frequency range with the coils that will be available for the Deus II? Example: would 4khz and 20 khz (transmitted/received at same time) have a greater performance than 45 khz and 61 khz (transmitted/received at the same time)? I'm asking because the high frequency coils (Deus) work very well, so I am a bit confused as to why a high frequency coil isn't (yet) offered with the Deus II.
  5. Dilek said (interview on Treasure Talk) she was working to get the warranty extended beyond two years. I don't recall if she said how long of an extension she was trying to get.
  6. I'm a bit confused by the talk about the Legend being a copy of the Equinox. The Legend looks a lot like the Simplex - which makes sense because the Legend is housed in the Simplex form. I suppose the Simplex could be said to look something like the Equinox, but I don't recall any complaints about the Nox looking quite similar to the Deteknix Quest Pro (released prior to the Nox). The two (Legend and Nox) seem to share a number of features, but that can be said for the Nox and machines that preceded it. Nokta-Makro has been quite upfront about their efforts to make a SMF machine that had those features that people requested, so I am not surprised to learn that the Legend has a number of features that are also found on the Nox (and other machines). My guess is that Minelab included desired features on the Nox because people wanted them - a concept that (I would think) should be applauded. The unknown, thus far anyway, is the performance of the Legend. So that can't be the basis for those opining that the Legend is a copy of the Nox. But if the Legend matches the performance of the Nox exactly, I would think that is something that NM should be commended for; especially given the rather significant price difference. If the Legend falls below the performance of the Nox I would be surprised if people claimed the Legend copied the Nox - for obvious reasons. Should the Legend's performance surpass that of the Nox, any claims of copying would reflect rather poorly on Minelab. As for Nokta-Makro targeting the Equinox (specifically the 800) - is it really a shock that a company would want to compete with their competitor's best selling machine? As detectorists we should encourage all (metal detector) manufacturers to bring their very best effort to market; anything less is to our own detriment. At times I am confused by the metal detecting community: we want the features/performance and spend many hours complaining about the lack of competitive machines from all the manufacturers, but when a company produces a metal detector that was designed to meet our demands - we deride that company for creating what we demanded? In my mind that is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face.
  7. I received an email (from ML) asking me to go to a link and fill out a survey. The survey mostly consisted of questions regarding thoughts on competitors, Minelab itself, what I'm looking for in a metal detector, and how Minelab could improve. I have never (previously) received such an email from Minelab, and took it as an indication of several things: 1. Minelab is paying attention to the competition and to the consumer. 2. Minelab sees challenges coming and plans to meet those challenges head-on. 3. Minelab sees room for improvement and is taking steps to make those improvements. I did find it a bit odd that Minelab's survey included Whites as a competitor, but I suppose that's due to there being a lot of Whites machines still in use. It is possible that ML thinks it possible that Garretts will release machines under the Whites label at some point in the future. From the USA standpoint it was a bit odd that ML also included Quest as a competitor, but that inclusion makes a lot of sense in other markets (where Quest seems to have a decent share of the market). Minelab's survey does include Fisher and Bounty Hunter, but no mention of Teknetics. Is that indicative of something, or a simple oversight? It is no surprise that ML is eager to protect/grow its market share; however I am still pleased in knowing that ML clearly intends to rise to the challenge presented by the competition. That is great news (though expected news) for all who enjoy metal detecting. I do wonder what caused the survey. Was it the new teaser from XP? The tease from NM? Something else, or just business as usual?
  8. I am inclined to believe the new XP machine is likely to be innovative, feature-rich, and priced accordingly. If the performance is there (real or perceived) consumers will justify the pricing by way of opening their wallets in gleeful anticipation. That said I also believe XP would be wise to take note of current trend (set by their competition) toward decreased prices for very capable machines. At the very least, XP would seemingly be served well if they made an effort to seriously compete in that segment of the market. With modern machines (for the most part) being software based, I am a bit surprised that we have yet to see a manufacturer offer one machine that can target multiple segments of the market. At this point software delivery is relatively routine; click a link or two, pay the amount required, and download a bunch of new features/performance. From the manufacturer’s standpoint such a system offers significant advantages: Tool and die costs are spread out over multiple (software) variations of the same machine. Physically the base model would be the same exact machine as the premium model. Given XP’s excellent ergonomics, I would think they can use the exact same platform they’re currently using for the Deus (further spreading the costs of manufacturing). A company portal (for loading the new software) allows the manufacturer the ability to bypass the middleman (dealers) and the associated commissions that are incurred - increasing profit margins and presumably allowing for better prices for the consumer. Up-selling consumers to more features/performance is simplified, and customer retention is far more likely when top-line performance/features can be realized for a few hundred dollars (verses spending $800+ for a competitor’s machine). There are significant advantages for the consumer too: A base model offers the consumer the opportunity to try a machine at a lower financial risk, while retaining the option of upgrading their machine to a top-level machine (should they decide to) for a relatively minor investment. The investment (in a top line model) is more easily spread out over time. Buy the base model then update to the top line model later (when desired and the money is on hand). Suppose XP offered a base SMF model at a targeted retail price somewhere around $500-$600. Make it capable of using the ORX wireless backphones (purchased separately) but ship it with the wired phones. Keep it fairly simple, but with enough features/performance to compete favorably with machines like the Vanquish 540, the Apex, and perhaps even the Equinox 600. Want more? Buy and install the premium software (say for $300) and now your machine is unlocked, with all the features and performance that XP is capable of delivering. The machine is now capable of working with the Ws4 backphones and can compete (favorably) with the competition’s top line models. Bundle the unlocked software with the Ws4 backphones and a MI6 pinpointer (at a price that makes that package attractive). I’m not saying that such a business model should happen (concerning metal detectors) or even that it will happen. I’m just surprised that it hasn’t.
  9. I'd like to see all of the suggestions made by Chase. While the odds are that the new offering won't be a simple matter of a new MF coil and an update for the current remote, that would be my preference. From the consumer's standpoint, that would be the most financially prudent option. If XP is putting out an entirely new machine, I'd like to see the new remote be a bit larger and easier to read (without reading glasses). I'd love a color screen (to this date I still think the V3i screen is the best on the market). I'd like to see the option to normalize VDI numbers at a frequency of the user's choice - mostly so the user could select a choice that allows for a larger spread (of the numbers) at the upper end of the scale. I'd like to see an option similar to the analyze function found in the V3i pinpoint mode - where the strength of each frequency (for the target) is shown. I'd like the new machine to be compatible with the W4 backphones, and the MI6 pinpointer. I'd like the new machine to be compatible with the current coils. I'd like the new remote to be very water/dust resistant (capable of withstanding heavy rain).
  10. On the various forums (that I read) a number of people have cited Minelab’s (smf) head start, and their patents, as a major road-block in Nokta-Makro’s path. That’s certainly a logical point, and likely the safe money bet. But... Nokta-Makro (Dilek) has been rather forward in stating their intent to produce a machine that competes head-to-head with the Nox 800 - and offer more for less. Marketing hype? Maybe. It could be that the “more” are features - bells and whistles mostly. Or it could be that NM found a new way to “skin the cat” and their new (smf) machine will offer more performance and more features; all without infringing upon a single patent. I’m not pretending that is the case, but I’m not going to categorically ignore the possibility either (no matter how unlikely it is). I have zero doubt that NM engineers know what makes the Nox 800 tick. They know its capabilities. It would be unreasonable to think NM doesn’t have several Nox 800's in their possession. (And Minelab will have several of the new NM machines in their possession, so they can see how it works - once that machine is released) There is a reason why NM (Dilek) has worded statements in the manner that she has. Dilek is a very astute person; she isn’t about to make grandiose claims that will come back to bite her at a later date. Her words/statements have been carefully chosen. For many avid hunters Dilek is Nokta-Makro. She has spent considerable energy/time cultivating our trust and respect. Dilek has gone out of her way to provide outstanding service countless times: she has made Nokta-Makro an incredible success story, and a force to be reckoned with. She isn’t going to chance all that by making claims that have no possibility of being valid: She is far too intelligent to do that. For me - if it was anyone else (from any other company) making statements along the lines of directly competing with the 800lb gorilla that is the Nox; I’d immediately discount those comments as being marketing nonsense. As it is, I trust that Dilek knows a lot more than I do, and if she says their new machine will compete directly - she believes it. And I’m inclined to believe the claims are very possible. Call it blind faith in someone who has earned my trust.
  11. Thanks for the welcome. I haven't been hunting for a bit now - too hot and family matters (my father has cancer) that matter far more. Once I can get back to hunting the Deus will get the use for awhile anyway - I need to learn that machine so I know what it is telling me (better). After that - all but the Compadre and Vanquish will be used. The compadre is mostly a loaner for the neighbor's grandson (when he wants to hunt with me). The Vanquish is my wife's machine, so I only "use" it when I'm helping her learn it.
  12. I've long been a lurker here, and have learned a lot in the process (thanks to all for sharing your knowledge). And thanks to Steve for sharing his incredible wealth of knowledge. I live in southern NJ (close to the DE bay). Mostly I hunt old permissions - sites that date back 200+ years. For me it is more about the hunt than it is about the find. I like the unknown aspect of it - who lost it, how did it impact them, what was their life like, etc.. My user name is derived from a Louis L'Amour book - Tahts-a-dats-ago was a character in one of his books (I used to collect books by L'Amour). I mention that because people often ask where the moniker came from. My current machines: Makro multi Kruzer Nokta-Makro Anfibio (multi) Tesoro Compadre Garrett Apex XP ORX XP Deus Minelab Vanquish 440 (bought it for my wife) Best of luck to all
  • Create New...