GB_Amateur

Nice finds! Beats the heck out of my nickel 5 cent piece sunbaker I found this afternoon on my walk. 😁 The color of that circular stone seems unusual to my eye. My wife would be snarfing those up if I had found them. She much prefers silver to gold, and turquoise stones in particular.

Could you also take a Fe3O4 reading?

Steve's going on year 49. What are you on, year 4? Do the math. 😏

Concerning these flags, could you guys be more specific? Metal poles or plastic, etc. It's not that hard to post a link to a retail site. A lot of us have done it many times, and it sure helps the readers. Thanks.

US silver half dollar coins, particularly Walking Liberties, are special (and difficult) finds. I'm still looking forward to my first, but glad you've scored a nice one.

I'm a bit confused. Does the quieter threshold improve detection depth when the gains on the two Pro's are the same? Or is it simply that the ability to increase the gain on the modded unit results in more depth after increasing the gain (and keeping the threshhold wobble the same)? Thanks for the tests and I look forward to the continuation.

Where do you get the parts? Also, how does the weight compare? Are the sections aluminum, carbon, a combination?

Welcome, DetectorMoe! I like your Avitar. What is it? Also, what are your detecting interests/specialties? Since you come from the first place (well, your state) that gold was found in Colonial times I'm wondering if you've searched for any of that. I look forward to your continued participation in the forum.

Welcome, RME! What kind of detecting do you do, and/or plan to do? Beach, underwater, dry land? Jewelry, coins, relics, native gold? Regardless, this is the place to learn about all of that.

Ok, I see what you're referring to. I elaborate: In the eary part of 1982, US small cents ('pennies') were of the traditional 95% copper composition. Traditionally, since 1864, pennies were composed of 95% copper with the remaining 5% tin and zinc. Apparently the mint wasn't exactly specific as to how much tin and how much zinc. Around 1962 (again, not very well documented) they did away with any tin and the remaining 5% was zinc. As copper went up in value, in late 1982 rather than to do away with pennies (the US government remains stubborn, obstinate, and irrational on that subject still today), they changed the composition to zinc with a (thin) copper plating. That transition occurred during 1982 and both compositions bear that date, in large quantities. Obviously the intent was that any cents minted after 1982 would all have primarily zinc composition. Apparently, as has happened previously (e.g. 1943 and 1944), a few of the earlier 95% copper composition planchets (blanks) slipped through the cracks. As a result these very rare off-metal strikes dated 1983 (mostly 'plains' = no mintmark, minted in Philadelphia or West Point, but apparently at least one from the Denver mint) bring $ prices in the 4 digits, in some cases even 5 digits. Likely that value will escalate as their popularity increases, assuming a horde isn't discovered. As you mention, the 95% copper pennies weigh 3.1 grams while the (undeteriorated) zinc versions ("Zincolns") come in less, at 2.5 grams. Unfortunately the easiest way to tell if a typical penny find is a Zincoln is to see if it has badly deteriorated from galvanic corrosion. Based upon the many Zincolns I've found, my guess is that it only takes a few years for a zinc penny to show signs of this deterioration. But short of looking at the dates, the weight difference is a great discriminator. (Oh, and so is a metal detector TID signal!)

Would you post a photo?

Care to explain why you've singled out those years?

I keep a log of all coin and jewelry finds, dates, locations, hours spent, temperature of the hunt, etc. But I separate things out after each hunt. Your one year collection is more impressive. Do you separate out metals with cash-in potential? I have buckets for both lead and copper. (I get quite a bit of copper scrap and some lead, from construction and demolition. Surprising to me how/why it wasn't snarfed up at the time. I guess when you're making big bucks operating heavy equipment you can't be bothered with the little stuff. Just goes to show how long it's been since the Great Depression.)

This is probably the deciding factor. You better have a good clothespin with you if you plan on going out into undiscovered territory. (Translation of what Fred said 😁) The fact that you are expressing potential pain in going many trips without finding gold is an indication the wide-eyed search of the wilds may not be for you. Consider buying a lottery ticket. You can buy one of the scratch-off tickets which gives you a higher likelihood of cashing a small prize, but (depending on the game), no chance of a big score. You can buy one of the mega-lottery tickets which give you a miniscule chance of a life-changing payout, but almost guaranteed of misses ('skunks'), even if you bought many tickets a week for a lifetime. As usual I've oversimplified. In fact here in the US the big prize tickets tend to "throw you a bone" of $5, $50, etc. probably in an attempt to keep up your morale. (Good analogy to Steve's post about mixing known areas with unknown areas to avoid getting too discouraged?) Back when metal detectors started becoming decent for finding gold (mid-late 1970s) it made more sense to go to the spots where gold had been removed, since previous methods couldn't cover ground efficiently. But as more detectorists (and better detectors) because available the low haning fruit was lost, the high hanging fruit was attacked, and eventually most of the fruit was gone, period. That swung the balance more towards looking for gold in places where it's not known to have been found. Does this occurrence now dis-favor looking in places known previously to have produced gold? Hard to say, but most likely depends upon the goals and makeup of the person asking the question.

...And a detector, presumably the one you were using. Is that a Fisher Gold Bug?