GB_Amateur

That's a good start, but will you actually be swinging a Garrett detector? (I recall you saying you have a fresh-in-the-box Apex....)

Yes, that one seems like a slam dunk. After that, though,...? It will be interesting to see how much of the aesthetic part they keep. Maybe just stick with everything but the logo, or keep the White's logo and add a Garrett one beside it. The one I'm concerned about is the Bullseye TRX pinpointer. It's my favorite even though I also use the Carrot. From my standpoint they should keep both, but whether that works profitwise or not,....

Uh, Mitchel, did you forget to include a smiley face, like this one?

That part makes a lot of sense. Ditto the RF communation connection (pairing headphones, etc.) function. Where they really let us down, though, was the user 'profile' button. I take advantage of that feature often but it takes both hands -- quite inconvient. I wonder how many people just don't bother with it when they otherwise would have. Having only one storage option (in the user profile) is equally annoying for the way I detect. We'll see how much they listen to the peanut gallery when they come out with their next version.

OK, I reread the full post and it makes sense. I disagree on a few minor points (mostly about definitions, though) and those aren't worth bringing up since it doesn't really add to the meaning/value of the topic. But the above (quote) has me confused. In your post I recall that the full scale range of the Eqx was 50 values and for the Deus, 100 values. Wouldn't that mean that 12-->14 on the Eqx (which in theory for a continuous scale is anything between 11.5 and 14.5 -- a 'distance' of 3) should be a distance of twice that = 6 on the Deus? So if the Deus sweetspot for USA nickel is 57, the nickel should show up between 54 and 60 (inclusive)? IMO, the two things that are important are repeatability and resolution. Repeatability because you want a particular target to give the same value every time, regardless of variables (e.g. properties related to its exact location) and resolution to allow you to separate/distinguish different type targets. As long as you do those two I don't feel that more is needed. But, yes, things like stability can lead to poorer repeatability and worse resolution.

Thanks, Hugh! I hope you didn't have evening plans (worse, with family) that you blew so you could write this. I need more time to absorb it, but on first reading I understand it, I think. I'll comment more tomorrow.

I think this sentence is a perfect example of 'redundancy'.

Can you give some examples? The first couple sentences made sense to me but the farther I read the more confused I got. 🤔

You appear to have misunderstood. The detector I saw on the show was an AT/Pro (IB/VLF), not an ATX (PI). But, yes, there are lighter IB/VLF's than the AT/Pro, as others have pointed out. For example, according to Steve's database, the XP/Deus @ 2 lb is a full lb (0.45 kg) lighter than the AT/Pro.

Doesn't Chase have all three? How far away from you is he? Isn't everybody on the USA east coast within a half day's drive, max? (Chase, if you don't like me volunteering you and your detectors for a test drive, my apologies....)

Their plan/hope was that the camera would still be with Irvine's body. My guess was that the detector was intended to find any metal in the snow, which could be something on/with a body. They couldn't see all the areas they wanted to search from their high altitude camp so even though they knew there was a lot of bare rock, possibly they figured some of their search area would be snow/ice covered. I bet there isn't 1/100 viewers (in fact that is ridiculously low estimate) who would have even recognized the detector. I only saw the control unit once for a few seconds. I had to surmise it was the Pro model from the color of the lettering. I did see the searcoils a few times including once for each day they searched, though. Those familiar with Garrett detectors should recognize them, but again, we are the exceptions, not the rule. I see more Minelab detectors on these adventure & treasure hunting shows than all others combined. So, is that due to wieselling, or should we change our tune to "well, of course, they are the best!"??

From what I can tell they didn't go to the summit. They had all been there multiple times and this trip was strictly to look for (and hopefully find) Irvine and his camera. So any side excursion would be too costly in terms of health. In fact on the last days of the expedition the summit climbers filled the trails, making it more dangerous for anyone on the upper part of the mountain. Before that the weather was horrendously bad which is why it took them over a month just to get a chance to search the areas they had researched. I have not but wish I had. Maybe I'll get another chance.

I watch a lot of adventure shows on cable TV and this past Sunday evening Discovery Channel had a 2 hour long one titled "Everest's Greatest Mystery". To set the background for this post, in 1924 two British climbers (one quite experienced -- George Mallory, and a novice climber -- Andrew Irvine) disappeared from the view of others (below) within a few hundred meters of the summit, never to be heard from again. It took 29 years until Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay accomplished and documented the supposed first human conquest of the summit, but questions remained. Did Mallory and Irvine actually reach the summit and succumb in their descent? In 1999 an expedition went to find Irvine, who carried the camera for the 1924 attempt, to hopefully determine if his photos would show that they reached the top. That expedition ironically failed to find Irvine's body, but Mallory's instead. Four experienced (each with multiple Everest trips) climbers from the USA were filmed in a spring 2019 expedition for this program. Their goal once again was to find Irvine and his camera. The weather in 2019 was particularly bad (12 climbers perished) and they spent over a month at base camp (17,000 ft = 5200 m) or above. Their ultimate trip lasted 3 consecutive days above 27,000 ft (8200 m), apparently shattering a record for most time consecutively at or above that altitude on Everest. Although they carried supplemental oxygen, for most of that time they had to conserve it and breathe the 33% (relative to sea level) dense air. At night the temperatures dipped to -20 F (-29 C) and although I don't recall the daytime temps I doubt they were much above 0 F (-18 C). Those are air temps, not windchills. (BTW, their high camps were set up by local guides who departed as soon as their task was complete.) I noticed a metal detector in the backpack of one of the expedition members, and he carried it all three days they searched near the summit. That's pretty amazing when you consider the conditions: 1) With so little oxygen, weight is critical. Even carrying an extra pound matters a lot; 2) At these temperatures I'm surprised a metal detector will even function; 3) The setup and operation had to be simple and any searching looking for just metal signal or not. The brain doesn't work well with low oxygen. As it turns out I never saw the detector being used, and I doubt it was. The climbers wore ice crampons but much of the terrain was windblown and thus rocky, not icy. Movement had to be delicate and anything held/carried in hand made it that much more dangerous. Also, without snow/ice cover there was nowhere for metal to hide. But that didn't stop the climber with the detector to bring it along every one of the three days they searched. He had to have considered it quite important. Oh, you may be wondering which detector he had with him: Garrett AT/Pro.

I think 'Motherlode Norm' is more appropriate. But he's such a modest guy he may not feel comfortable with that moniker. He quietly comes around every once in a while with a low key post of finds that far outweigh his prose. Glad to see another.

Could you explain what you mean by "I'm not a big fan of the tones...?" As far as "BIG learning curve", I may be one of those responsible for that claim. It seems that for those with experience using other Minelab simultaneous multifrequency detectors (BBS and FBS), there is carryover in knowledge of how to set them up, what to listen for, etc. Similarly, detectorists who have used many machines over the years (including analogs) also appear more comfortable/quicker adjusting to the Equinox. I had neither of those prerequisites. But I was finding things from the get-go with the Equinox, equal to or maybe a bit better than I had with my previous detectors. So no loss there. I just quietly lamented the fact that I apparently wasn't experiencing what others were reporting, and when I finally started to understand the nuances (particularly with the richness of the audio) I mentioned my long learning curve in some posts here. Regarding Vanquish vs. Eqx 600 vs. Eqx 800, I'm glad for many reasons that I went with the 800. I never run my Eqx without the WM08 (with earbuds in warm weather and Sunray Pro Golds otherwise). I take full advantage of the exclusive tone adjustments (volume, pitch, and breaks) in 5 tones for coin hunting including USA nickels, which is about 80-90% of my usage time. My sites are loaded with pulltabs and to a lesser extent, can slaw. If I had to look at the screen every time I got a hit in the 11-20 TID window = default tone #3 of 5, I'd not cover anywhere near as much ground (and I go slower than most already). I can set a high tone for the nickel sweetspot (12-13), an intermeditate tone for the pulltab range, and a rather low tone for the foil zone (just below nickels). You can't do that with the 600 nor (AFAIK) on any of the Vanquishes. The 600 does have 50 tones, though, and some use that rather than 5 tones, in which case much of the advantage of the 800 over the 600 disappears. One thing I noticed right away with the Equinox is its target separation ability. I've read that the Deus and ORX are equally good at that. IMO separation is the most important feature the Eqx has over my Fisher F75, with reliable target ID at depth (what I consider a related properly) a close second. But target separation, in my case, is one of the things where learning the audio subtleties is important so the better I get at that the better I'm able to separate and distinguish good targets from trash. I wish you good success whichever detector you choose, and that includes if you give the N/M MK another chance. But for sure you should find one that fits your style and preferences. The last thing you should be distracted by when detecting is a lack of confidence in your detector.

I've seen several used Equinox 600's go for under $500 on Ebay. Here's one up for auction now (so may go for less or more than $500 when finished in a day or so): https://www.ebay.com/itm/Equinox-600-used/402479964992?hash=item5db5ace340%3Ag%3AsY0AAOSwV65ffdsi&LH_ItemCondition=4

Interesting collection of finds. Why would a mail slot be curved?

I vaguely recall back when the Fisher CZX was still in the works, multiple leaks onto forums (I don't think this one) by a particular insider at First Texas. Lots of egg on faces resulted from that. Is there any connection here other than the obvious (i.e. a Fisher employee making public claims)?

A few weeks ago I was going to start a thread about the Equinox keypad and menu, but I decided I do too much complaining about an otherwise excellent detector. Still, I'm glad you (and especially the techs/modders) stepped up. Where can I get one? 😁

The more you can report about them (where it was found, what was done to it, whether it attracts a magnet, and more) the better chance you'll have getting an answer.

Thanks! At least for air tests, from your numbers it looks like the 7" round Detech and the 6"x8" Detech are equal, both beating the White's 6"x10". One is closed (for rough ground) and the other open (for water). Weight is probably not an issue for these small coils, but cost might be....

El Nino77, thanks for the tests and photos, but it's a bit difficult to determine relative performance. Can you list for a couple representative targets (e.g. a particular coin and a particular piece of jewelry) the actual distances for each of the three coils?

If I couldn't see the details of the coins and token, I wouldn't be able to discern that this is an Australian site as opposed to one in the USA. Eating utensils, shotgun shell butts, harmonica reed, metal buttons,... so much in common. Maybe that particular spur would clue in an expert/collector of horse tack, though? I see at least one bottle stopper, maybe a second. The turquoise one at least should be meanigful to someone with the matching bottle. Thanks for the display.

Looks like you already upgraded to a carbon fiber shaft -- good looking setup. What's the coin next to the penny in the lower two photos? Also, have you identified the two items in the upper right of the bottom photo -- one with an adjustment knob (oil lamp?) and the other a brass(?) knob on a rusty shaft?

So you don't have the stock 5"x10"? Coverage is important (driven by the head-to-toe dimension) so unless you're faster pinpointing with the smaller coil I'd go with ~10% more coverage (sweep direction) of the 9x8.