GB_Amateur

Welcome, Keith! If you like well-performing tools that last a lifetime, here is my suggestion for turf (not for beach sand): https://www.predatortools.com/collections/shovels/products/model-60-vulcan-shovel

Welcome, Popeye! 20 hours? Get out there! (Well, in the spring when it warms up.) "Not a lot of detector addicts..." hopefully means not a lot of competition. Tons of history up your way and that leads to old coins, too. Are you close to water where swimmers & sunbathers have left you some goodies?

That is great to know as it applies to many of us with detectors that use these batteries. Thanks for all you wrote, not just stating but especially also also explaining. I guess a question I'm left with is "how do you know the charge level?" My understanding (may be faulty) is that battery charge indicators on devices that have them are not particularly accurate. Maybe that is caused by them having to measure different types of batteries (different kinds of disposables and different kinds of rechargeables) with one simple circuit.

Modesty is good, but I disagree. It wasn't all luck. You said in an earlier post that you put in the 'homework' time including building a back yard test garden (who does that after just getting his first detector?) and learning as much as you could in the limited time after work. Luck is always a component, but it's something we can't control. Putting in the hours detecting, researching, learning your instruments, reviewing your finds -- those are key components we can control. Attitude is another big one. You seem to have all of the above and that allows you to take advantage of the good luck when it presents itself.

I'm not particularly interested in debating this particular 'treasure' or any other specific treasure, and here's one reason why. I don't place 100% confidence in anything. You seem 100% confident from this quote which I now repeat with my emphasis: "...(the part about treasure) is nothing but embellished telephone game ghost story nonesense...". Maybe your definition of 'nothing' is different than mine (or Webster's). Apparently we 'play' by different rules which by its nature renders any debate/game/discussion an unfair exercise. Even in this instance (the article Mitchel linked) you focus in on the prologue hype of gold/treasure chest. I made a point that the article (at least the part I found interesting -- about 80% of it) is about research. You never said you read the entire article, but I took it from what you did say that you didn't get past the prologue. I did read the entire article, including the prologue, and criticized that part as sensationalism. So we're talking past each other -- typical of these kinds of disagreements. Is there evidence for 'treasure' of the kind that makes people rich -- significant precious metals and gemstones? I didn't see it. In fact the research which I continue to emphasize & commend includes an apparent discovery of the ship's manifest. (Anyone interested can read the highlights of that in the article.) I'm not here to convince you or anyone else that a particular treasure story (when we're talking about actual treasure stories) is true or not, and I don't think I've ever done that, at least in the years I've been posting to this site. But I will defend myself (and any others if they want to ride along) that reading/watching these stories isn't a worthless (dogmatic word, like 'nothing' in some cases of the word's use) activity nor is it purely (dogmatism again) an appeasement of a fiction/fantasy human need. I sometimes (although not always) read posts here with details of the use and techniques about the Minelab GPZ 7000. I'm as likely to own one of those as I am to search for (let alone find) one of the ultra-famous treasures you mention. But I learn some things about detecting which may at some point help me with another detector or treasure search. (OMG, there's that word -- 'treasure'.) Almost always when I watch these kinds of shows (and there are many non-treasure shows which fall under a similar umbrella) I learn something about good (and more often, bad) investigative techniques, pitfalls in reasoning, and human psychology. After watching/reading one of these am I 100% convinced either way as to the existence/veracity of the primary subject? (I think I answered that in the first paragraph.) Sometimes I delve deeper and sometimes I'm just satisfied with the lessons I've learned.

It's unfortunate that some authors (including this one) and TV show promoters feel they have to sensationalize to gain audience. The prologue (~5% of the article) highlights the belief (most overvalued word in the English language) of some treasure searchers. Besides drawing in fringe (in terms of knowledge, interest, and particularly veracity concern, i.e. the lack of it) audience it provides fodder for dissers who already believe it can't be true and now have justified that belief. A classic example is the use of 'curse' on about every major possible large treasure. Who needs 'curse'? -- the people who no longer read fiction because there are stories based on fact that provide the same titillation in an easier medium. But it requires sensationalism to draw them in, and thus the rest of us with sincere interest in finding truth are 'cursed' by this new curse. (Actually, it's not the modern media that invented this ploy. Just read the old hardcopy treasure magazines from the 1960's --> their recent disappearance. I guess it's deep-seated.) If we recognize it for what it is and look past it, we have a better chance of sorting out evidence from belief. It's kinda like crime investigation. The detectives get hundreds of 'clues' from the public in high profile cases, most of which are at best unrelated but at worst maliciously fabricated. They don't just throw their hands up and say "with all this misinformation the crime never happened." Sorting through reports, etc. to find meaningful evidence is their duty. In the story Mitchel linked in the initial post of this thread, if you read past the stories of the treasure seekers' beliefs and get to the recounting of the research part, you will have earned a view of the evidence. Disagreeing with that is still an option, though, but at least you've sorted out the (potential) wheat from the obvious chaff.

Not everyone. Geof and I delved into it and came out the other end with an appreciation for the work involved (research into the ship, and at least in my case, the effort involved in chronicling that deep 'dive').

Quite the finish to a story that didn't really need one since the first half was a treasure find all on its own. But it's quite the bonus. I notice some commonalities of your perseverant search with famous treasure caches: 1) Was it ever lost in the first place? 2) If lost, has it already been found? 3) If not yet found, is it even findable? 4) If findable, is it worth the effort? Yes, yes, yes, (and apparently) yes! I don't know if Garrett Searcher would consider this for their monthly publication as (AFAIK) Garrett hasn't revealed their plans for their acquisition of White's assets. Who knows, it might even inspire them to re-issue the TDI Series.... "Cats already out of the bag" so maybe dropping them a note could lead to something positive.

Sometimes it requires reading more than the first few paragraphs (in this case, a prologue) to understand what a piece of writing is really about. This main body of this article is about an eccentric researcher who wasn't after tangible treasure (i.e. the kind we seek) but rather searching for information on the sailors who were cast ashore so she could write an epic poem about them. (I don't even remember tales of gold bounty in this article -- just shows how captivating the story of the research was to me.) The lengths she went to in search of information on the ship and its crew is pretty impressive. I suspect it's this kind of dedication that the most ardent (and successful) sunken treasure searchers of today share. She uses some of the same resources that they do. Here is a brief synopsis of what is thought to be the ship that wrecked. (Some of the documentation mentioned in the Wikipedia article are directly from the work of the woman in the article Mitchel linked.) Interesting that there was a recorded/documented earthquake and tsunami in the year 1700 (~5 years after the shipwreck is hypothesized to have occurred) which is thought to have resulted in the beeswax from the ships cargo making it high up on the Oregon shore. Thanks, Mitchel, and you've reminded me that I have a book on my shelf chronicalling the history, research, and eventual recovery of the SS Central America's San Francisco shipment including the now famous gold coins. (This book was mentioned in a post by Steve H. several years ago.) Good cold weather bedtime reading awaits!

I've had a similar experience. This summer I dug (and posted photo here) an 1864 2 cent piece which I associated with a Civil War training encampment. But it was less than 5" deep. However, it was about 1 ft away from a utility pole! So I think (as you) that when they installed the utility pole (still over 50 years ago) they likely pulled that coin from deeper down. And the next thought was/is "what other CW coins and relics are hiding there, and are they shallow enough that one of my detectors can pick them up??" I have another spot where I've found the ground loaded with burned charcoal. It's right next to a creek ford. I wonder if that is CW related, and I'm going back to that spot soon to do a more careful search. (Minelab Eqx is pretty good with charcoal, and I have the TDI -- PI -- but the nails, etc. will drive me crazy if I use that, I'm afraid.... Even the Eqx in gold mode which is more sensitive and has good VDI will still be a strain on my ears with its VCO and limited control of volume as a function of VDI.)

Well, OK, guys. I'll put these on my list. Good news is that it's cold enough this week (highs around 35F = 2C) that I don't really want to go detecting. Bad news is that it's cold enough this week that I don't really want to do a lot of testing either! 😁 I actually used my White's TDI when I built the setup 2 (or is it 3?) years ago, but either something got added later or I just missed this target. My intent is not to clean the soil of its natural ferromagnetic content but simply to find that pesky piece of iron (and any others).

My main test area was built with a variable depth double barrel (ala shotgun) angled PVC tubing to allow both continuously variable depth and nearby target interference (one target in one barrel, another target in the other barrel, depth of the two can be the same or different, as can the separation, but depth difference and separation are intimately tied together). I buried these two coins for calibration purposes. However my shotgun setup has a problem in that there is a (so far) hard-to-find piece of iron trash that makes it difficult to listen for good signals as the targets get deeper. I need to remove all the soil and run a magnet through it before replacing. Just haven't gotten around to that... 😕 Pretty sure it's off, but I need to check. It's such a weird feature (IMO) to have a detector where the discrimination settings in memory affect the all-metal side's performance. But you've reminded me of that feature covered in the user manual. Another variable is DST on/off which some say has no effect. I've always left mine on (and I did include that detail in the earlier post). Yes, good point. I did consider trying to figure the depth limit (in my ground) at which the VDI becomes unreliable for these two buried targets. That's a tough distinction to make, though, and even more aribtrary than determining the depth at which signal is lost. The other thing I'd like to measure, though, is depth vs. gain/sensitivity setting for at least a couple different coils (not 4 or 5 of them). That along with the higher priority of adding the concentric coil to the table.

I understand that part. So you've found sites where Zincolns were deeper than older coins (silver and/or Wheaties) in the same patch of ground? I get that (exceptions possibly in areas like Florida where depth of targets increase more drastically than typical moderate climate zones). My thinking is that finding deep modern coins is a bad thing. In my experience that situation is usually associated with reworking/backfilling ground near relatively recent construction/improvement such as when new parking/walkways/buildings/etc. are installed. The exception I've noticed is when backfill soil is brought in from an older site. I've found fairly shallow to moderate depth (say < 5") old coins in sites which my research says should not have contained them. Shallow Zincolns don't tell me if a site has been searched recently (meaning during last ~10 years) or not since they are easy to ignore when detecting. There is risk that comes with this practice as they can be masking deeper, more desirable targets. I usually start out my hunts by removing them but as time ticks away and I get tired/sore/annoyed from recovering so many targets I sometimes just walk over the loud (shallow) ones.

So the hole through the coil housing for the mounting bolt has been reduced in size? Previously a nominal 5/16 inch (~8 mm) diameter bolt was included. Are they shipping smaller diameter (~1/4 inch) diameter bolts with these replacement coils?

Sounds like you have the bases covered: ground balancing IB/VLF for dry land and waterproof (to 200 ft / 60 m depth) PI for the water, with both capable of covering non-magnetite beaches. Hold off getting anything more until a further need arises and get some brownie points with the family in the process. 😁

I'm confuse with this statement. (Maybe something got lost in translation?) It does not appear to me that the higher conductive (but smaller) 95% copper 1 cent coin saw more improvement as coil size increased compared to the lower conductive (and larger) 25% nickel, 75% copper 5 cent 'nickel'. Yes, starting with the 5" round DD coil and going to the intermediate sized coils it did better but after that there was only a small improvement. The nickel didn't improve as much from small to medium but continued to improve as coil size increased from there. Is the size of the target the big effect here rather than the (pure) conductivity? My data along cannot distinguish between those two effects. A comparison using a very early small cent (Flying Eagle and 1859-63 Indian Head) which is similar in size to the modern Memorial but intermediate in composition (12% Ni, 88% Cu) might sort this out (or not...). I do have one of those IH's (not a find) so could maybe use it in my variable depth teststand (or even in a pure air test).

There is either a measurement error, a typo, or a conversion (metric <--> SAE) error. 7.15 mm is not equivalent to 0.309 inches.

Good to know. I don't like digging Zincolns and sometimes just skip over the loud (meaning near-surface) VDI's in their region of VDI-space. I don't mind digging copper Memorial pennies. I keep separate counts of the two kinds in my records of recovered coins.

I did some testing in my back yard to compare relative depths achievable in my soils with various coils on the Fisher F75. Caution: these are relative measurements specific to my soil conditions (including ferromagnetic mineral content and current moisture content). The purpose is merely to compare coil sensitivity for particular settings which push the detection depth limit under these conditions but otherwise should not be used as an absolute indication of how this detector with these coils mounted will perform under different conditions by other detectorists. My ground is of moderate mineralization, measuring 2-3 bars on the F75 depending upon exact location in my backyard and coil choice (higher reading for largest coils). Detector setup: Fisher F75 Limited (black) operating in motion 'all metal' (USA nomenclature, not Minelab's!), DST on, gain=99 (max), ground balanced, noise cancelled, threshold=0. I plugged Garrett GS2 headphones directly into the socket, i.e. 'wired' headphones. Test targets: 5" deep 95% copper Memorial USA 1 cent, 6" deep 25% nickel, 75% copper USA 5 cent ('nickel'). (These have been in the ground ~ 2 years.) Measurement meaning: because the coins are at fixed depth, in each measurement I raise the coil until I lose the signal in either left or right swing directions. That is, I require the target to sound off clearly as the coil moves from left to right and from right to left. I use wood blocks as shims with a least significant thickness increment of 1/2" (~1.3 cm). I estimate half that or 1/4" as the measurement's systematic uncertainty. Note that these measurements are intermediate ('hybrid') between full ground and an (full) air test. Coils tested: Fisher stock 7"x11" DD and 5" round DD (both included in the Limited/black model package), Coiltek 6" round DD prototype (built for Fisher F5 and operated successfully on my Fisher Gold Bug Pro), Mars 6"x10" DD Sniper, and Detech 13" round DD Ultimate. (I forgot to test the only concentric I have for this detector -- Fisher 5.5"x10" which is the stock coil on their F70. I'll do that later this week and add it to the table below.) Results: Summary/Conclusions: With the exception of the yellow-highlighted Coiltek prototype (which was not designed for the F75), the order of depth does reflect coil size. The Mars 6"x10" DD performs almost as well as the stock Fisher 7"x11" DD. The largest coil, the Detech Ultimate, is only a bit better than those two which likely reflects the considerable increase in ground it 'sees'.

One more followup on my experiences using Raphis's suggestions. I've been on four hunts since trying out Raphis's settings and ideas, total of 12 hours. The second hunt was to an area that had produced some Wheaties, a silver nickel ('Warnick') and a Buffie plus a 1920's swimming basket tag plus some other old relics/artefacts. One strip along the paved walking path I had not searched (covid-19 distancing being one reason) so I started there but after maybe 1.5 hours (half of the hunt) I switched to previously hunted ground. The unsearched strip was unfortunately backfilled recently (in old coin timeframe; found a copper Memorial at > 7" depth). The rest of the day wasn't any more productive -- the only day of the four that didn't produce Wheaties. Hunts #3 and #4 were mostly an area I had hunted previously although not thorougly (more below). But I also spent about an hour in a previously unhunted (by me) side path to a box canyon shallow waterway. That only produced two copper Memorials, one in the frigid water about 7" deep and the other in a spillway off of a ledge, in the 6"-7" range. Fighting among the rocks (prior to and during digging) wasn't very encouraging. The rest of those last two days was in an area that had previously produced old coins -- an Indian Head penny and a Mercury dime among them. A (modest) total of four Wheaties was the old coin result for these two days. One of these (along with a copper Memorial) were shallow and strong enough that I concluded I hadn't gotten a coil over it in my previous efforts. The other three Wheaties, though, were likely ones I passed over due to their far-from-perfect signals. One in particular was especially problematic and masked by both a rusty crown cap (only the main flat disk part remained) and a pulltab. Third target from that hole was the charm, and about 6" depth. Another Wheat was recovered from a depth of 8" to 9", as deep of a coin as I've ever found (if 9" it is my deepest). I'm still not hearing/noticing the faintest (fading in and out of detectable range) signals. That will come, I hope. But in the meantime I'm investigating the super-iffy signals that often turn out to be vertical (err, not horizontal) nails/wire. I can't really describe how these sound, maybe because I just don't understand them well enough. However, Raphis's posts have me listening more carefully than ever before and that, IMO, is what is leading to these difficult, sometimes masked old coins. The one thing I'm experimenting with is comparing Field 1 sounds&VDI's to Park 1 sounds&VDI's after finding a target. I still use Field 2, 50 tones, Recovery Speed = 6 for investigating the nickel zone (12-13) signals which seem to be pretty consistent between Park 1 and Field 1. Oh, and another thing I'm experimenting with (target investigation only) is Gold 1 with its VCO signal and apparent stronger signal (for a fixed depth). Just starting to look at that. Since initiating this thread I've seen comments from other posters on other threads about finding nickels at 10-11 and 14-15 on the Eqx VDI scale. Also there has been mention of Indian Heads coming in with VDI of 18 and 19. All of these are in my "aluminum" reject zones (by ear, not by notching). Why? In 265 hours in this particular muni park this year I've dug 1299 pulltabs of which >90% came in 12-13. If I recover targets farther outside that range, Imagine how much of my time I'll be digging aluminum trash. Although the pulltabs are densest around picnic tables, there is hardly anywhere they aren't distributed. All the places where people spent time they were drinking beer and sodas, too. The previous detectorists in this park didn't clean up the pulltabs for me but rather just cherry-picked the high conductors. 😠

I agree. The more you listen (with your brain, not just your ears) the more you understand the Equinox's 'language'. But just like learning a modern foreign language, turning on the radio or TV to a station with native speakers when you are just starting out is going to be overwhelming. I'm 2 3/4 years into using the Eqx 800 and still learning what it's telling me. (Thanks to site member/poster Raphis here, I've recently made another quantum step in that learning process.) Yes, the 800 has those extra features that allow this. I run 5 tones in search mode (50 tones in investigation mode -- typically User Profiled) and each tone is customized in every one of the three setting options: tone volume, tone pitch, and tone break. As Jeff and others point out, in typical parks (meaning any park that has been frequented since the aluminum can and its associated pulltabs went into use around 1965), the aluminum density can be extremely tedious. And many (including all of my parks) also have iron nails, wire, etc. adding to the din.

You're 10 short. Better get out there; you have 18 days (including today) remaining. (90 is still pretty good, though. 😉)

From the article Mitchel linked: When Ashwin Gadgil, a doctoral candidate... and later there: “Like my advisor, Dr. Sweetman often says: science, for the sake of science, can be interesting, but if it's not applicable, then it's never going to be used,” said Gadgil. “So, you want it to be interesting and new, but you also want it to be applicable to real-life scenarios and to make a meaningful difference. That, in my opinion, really is what makes a good Ph.D. thesis.” Putting those two things together it sounds as though he will be 'sharing' his findings when he publishes his dissertation/thesis. As to whether his software becomes available to the public, though, that's quite a different issue.

Excellent data you've compiled; thanks for that as it provides something for us to compare our own compilations. Does this report include older coins (e.g. 90% silver)? Have you wondered why these fractions occur -- e.g. almost as many quarters as dimes, and considerably fewer nickels than either of those? Also, do you have a breakdown of the pennies into 95% copper vs. Zincolns? (I assume 'Sacajawea' includes the same composition later dollars, e.g. Presidentials. But no Susan B. Anthony nor the larger earlier format?) My end-of-the-year report will now include comparisions with your baseline data. I will post that..., at the end of the year.

Welcome, Sir Pansallot! Lots of areas of interest here to cover all treasure hunting bases. Your expertise will be appreciated.