GB_Amateur

Just brainstorming here, but is the Vanquish running at equivalent gain? Turning down the gain could lead to more stable TID's, but of course you lose finds in the process.

Wow, that's like finding a > 2 gram gold nugget! Looks like it's hardly been out of the box. Hmmm. Is it possible the original screw was lost and replaced? Regardless, a great find and sounds like you've already gotten your money's worth in satisfaction alone. Looking forward to your posts of the finds it garners.

That's quite the honey hole; well done! I've actually picked up a valuable habit which I suspect is second nature to experienced coin hunters (as well as nugget hunters): survey the area with wide, sweeping, non-overlapping swings until you hit a desirable target (old coin or relic). Then be more throrough in overlapping swings, etc. in the area of the find. It seems to be working for me, too, although in my case it's typically a few coins, not 14. Keep up the good work!

UPDATE: I couldn't find any amplifier settings/knobs and when volume knob was max I could hardly hear them on my Toshiba satellite with max gain. By contrast, the built in speakers on the laptop were far and away much louder. As best I can tell, these speakers are junk.

Thinking about easy counterweight for the Minelab Equinox, I reaized that a paper roll of US clad dimes weighs right at 4 oz (1/4 lb) and fits inside the end of the shaft! If you want to get the stock plastic endcap fully back on I think you need to use the lowest (farthest from shaft butt) location for the arm cup mounting. A mnemonic rule of thumb: US coinage (5 cent, clad 10 cent through half dollar) have very close to the same density as pure copper: 8.96 g/cm^3. That's about 79% the density of pure lead (11.35 g/cm^3). Another one: Pure tungsten and pure gold have almost identical densities (19.30 g/cm^3 and 19.32 g/cm^3 respectively). You can buy tungsten weights but they aren't as cheap as lead, etc.

Thanks, Steve. Actually I haven't been able to use this modded detector. The ground is semi-frozen in most of my hunting sites. I still have to drill & ream the two holes (with one motion since they are on opposite sides of the tube/shaft) which I'll do Sunday when I'm at my friend's house for the Super Bowl. (He has a drill press; I don't.) Monday is supposed to be nice weather so I may go out and hope to find thawed ground. Seems that thicker grass works as an insulator, although too thick and it keeps your coil too far away from the ground, or I end up pressing the coil hard into the grass which exacerbates the elbow & wrist problem! But thanks to your suggestions I'll play around with adding counterweight. Naively it seems counter-productive which is why I haven't tried it yet. But as usual I need to be reminded that balance trumps weight. Thanks, again.

I know there's a long and old thread discussing this topic and other Equinox ergonomics but I decided not to bury this post there. In the last few months I've had some minor issues with the elbow on my swing arm ("tennis elbow" according to my doctor) but worse, recently I've been having wrist pain on the same arm. I don't know if the latter is related to detecting but it reminded me of the above linked discussion (and others) about S- vs. straight-shafts. I don't know if the mod I now describe is new. (After 2 years in the users' hands I would have thought not, but don't recall it on this site, anyway.) Here's a picture of the almost finished garage mod: In a nutshell, I've replaced the two lower sections of the Equinox shaft with the two lower sections of the Minelab X-Terra shaft. Now I'll start at the bottom and work my way up, describing the differences. Coil to shaft attachment: Surprisingly (because it seems like Minelab changes dimensions, etc. on every new detector) the gap between the ears is almost a perfect fit. It seems to be slightly looser with this mod, but that may be simply due to wear on the gaskets. I measured the shaft's widths and they are very close, possibly about 0.005 inches (~0.1 mm) different. Different gaskets or just a metal or plastic shim could tighten things up, but for now I'm not going to do that. Next is the screw/bolt and nut. The X-Terra had a nominal 1/4 inch diamter bolt while the Eqx is larger, (I think it's 8 mm, slightly larger than the SAE 5/16 inch). Again, until I find out otherwise I'm not going to be concerned about this as the smaller bolt goes through both parts just fine. Lower shaft section composition: The Eqx has a carbon fiber lower shaft section whereas the X-Terra has an aluminum shaft with a plastic extension/insert for the coil attachment section. I did a quick test-garden check and the mod didn't appear to give any deterioration in performance. 5 in. deep penny and 6 in. deep US nickel, in moderately mineralized soil, I could turn gain down to 5 and still (barely) hear both in Park 1, recovery speed = 5, Iron Bias F2 = 5. Again, at this point good enough for me. Middle shaft section: This is the S-section. The smaller diameter of this part is why you can't use the Equinox's lower section -- its diameter is too large to mate with the X-Terra S-section. Middle shaft section (X-Terra) to upper shaft section (Equinox) mating: This is where things get a bit more complicated. The O.D. of the X-Terra shafts is right at 3/4 (0.75) inch whereas the Equinox is ~0.78 in. This 0.03 (~3/4 mm) difference is not acceptable as is. I used 0.0015 in thick copper tape to build up the X-Terra shaft. The tape's adhesive adds some thickness as well. I needed 15 inch length of tape for a complete wrap to make up the difference. (Note: I'm going to add another equivalent wrap above the alignment pin as well, but as of now -- shown in the photo -- I only have the one wrap.) Next, note that the X-Terra has two alignment pins compared to the single one for the Equinox. Turns out they are 90 degrees out-of-phase. In addition, the pin size (and thus hole diameter required) is different, this time slightly larger on the X-Terra. I'm going to drill two opposing holes in the upper Equinox shaft. Again it appears that the X-Terra was made to SAE dimensions and a 1/4 inch hole is the right size. To make sure I don't get more hole than I need, and to avoid the sloppy 'triangular' hole that standard jobber drill bits tend to make in thin sheet metal, I've ordered a 1/4 inch reamer from Amazon for the job. Weight difference: The X-Terra lower sections and the attachement bolts & nuts are 80 g. (~2 2/3 oz. or ~0.2 lb) heavier than the equivalent Equinox pieces. I assume this is due at least in part to the carbon fiber composition but the tubing (and other pieces) may also be contributing. Potential concerns: I start by pointing out that I'm not a beach/water hunter. Apparently the drag, etc. in that form of detecting puts more mechanical stress on the connections and parts in general. In particular, drilling two more holes for the alignment pins in the upper section shaft (which unfortunately are located right at the same location as the already present hole) will result in a weakening of the shaft there. I don't think that will be an issue for me, but water hunters (who apparently prefer straight shafts anyway) could be scared away from this mod. I suppose one might be able to buy a replacement upper section from Minelab.... Those holes are the only thing that keeps this mod from being purely 100% reversible and assuming they don't result in future breakage, I have the best of both worlds. (Of course it helps to have an X-Terra sitting around collecting dust!)

Great discoveries, and thanks for waking me up to the fact that 39 can be a US silver dollar. Add my name to the long list of Minelab Eqx users who have been ignoring those super high TID's. Not any more!

Welcome, Ken! You obviously live in a great place for treasure hunting. I just watched and appreciated one of your relic hunting adventures. You do an excellent job of editing. I'm an adjunct member of the Eureka Club (part of my sister's family membership) but only make it to about one meeting per year. I'm hoping to make the April club meeting. Look forward to meeting you and Jeff McClendon next time I'm there.

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?

I had to stop and contemplate the following occurrences. In the past ~week we've seen/heard of three absolutely historical US metal detecting finds. Idaho Peg discovered that her chunk of silver from Florida's Treasure Coast is quite likely from the 1715 Fleet, one of the two or three most famous treasures found in the Western Hemisphere. 2Valen reports on his multi-year quest for a Civil War cache which preliminarily produces a soldier's possessions including eight gold coins, four of which he is rewarded and displays here. Then Goldbrick tells us about his amazing 1849 privately minted $5 gold piece from the first year of the California Gold Rush. Has this sunk in: 1715 Fleet (lost in a hurricane on its way to Spain) silver coins, US Civil War gold coin cache, and California Gold Rush rare privately minted coin? I don't know what history is still taught in schools but I sure hope these finds represent it. It excites me just reading about these; I can't imagine how I would feel if I were experiencing them first hand! 'Bucket List' labelling doesn't do them justice. Top that, detectorprospector.com members (and I hope you do).