GB_Amateur

You've got some beautiful country up there to hunt. The finds are a bonus. Although not particularly scarce, I like that 1954-S penny, the second to last year they minted in SF until resuming in 1968. Glad to see the MXT (another Dave Johnson creation) still holding its own, approaching 2 decades in operation.

Living in Reno you have a lot of relic, coin, and natural gold sites nearby with treasure within your detectors' capabilities. I'm looking forward to you posting your finds. Welcome!

With those detectors and club memberships you are already starting on the right feet. Glad to see more Hoosiers join the ranks at DetectorProspector.com. You have a lot of historic sites up there to detect. Go get 'em!

The last thing you should do is try dissolving the quartz yourself with anything more than very dilute hydrofluoric (HF) acid. This is one of the deadliest chemicals known, period. If I were given the choice of getting HF spilled on me or getting bit by a diamondback rattler without being able to make it to a hospital for antivenom, I'd chance the latter. From what I can tell, the Wink product is safe. Don't even think of going past that.

Didn't get as much done as I had hoped, but got through the first roll (40 coins). Nothing of note yet. Everything was 13 plus or minus. But 160 to go and I only need one outlier to add to your mounting evidence. More tomorrow.

Sorry for the 6 week delay in response. I just found this thread. (Wonder how much other good stuff I've missed....) Absolutely I'm interested and applaud your dogged effort. I have four rolls of Warnicks which I collected over the years (not from the ground) which I'm going to VID today with the Equinox 800. I'll let you know what I find. Besides the hyphotheses I've mentioned before (and not unique since I see some of the findmall posters coming up with the same speculation) is 'evolution' of composition while in the ground, and regional distribution (since you guys in OKC area are finding multiples). Regarding the numismatic community being interested, there is no doubt in my mind they are. They get excited about less likely/unusual anomolies than that. Off metal strikes are not super rare. I think they typically occur on a few coin basis (relatively speaking, I don't literally mean 'few'), though, rather than a moderately consistent fraction such as you have seen. And as you note, it's something that doesn't get a lot of attention, probably because until recently it was difficult to determine. As far as getting resistance when you first brought up the subject, this is natural. For example, suppose some new person showed up here with such an idea. They wouldn't immediately be congratulated -- readers would want more evidence. And we know how metal detectors work, just from experience alone. (Oh, wait, maybe we're experiencing deja vu. ?) I wish I still worked with X-ray equipment. I would have snuck a few of your specimens into lab. (Shush. Don't tell the gov'ment.)

I haven't used one of those guns, but do have experience in the field of X-ray detection. Hopefully I'm not getting into too much lingo here.... These devices excite the atoms in the sample and look for the de-excitation signatures, which are energies characteristic of the inner shell electrons of the atoms. These are uniquely associated -- kind of like a fingerprint -- with each element. As it turns out, the higher the atomic number of the element, the more likely the excitation leads to energy release of the characteristic energies. So metals like lead and gold with very high atomic numbers and even copper and iron, with intermediate atomic numbers, are much easier to detect than oxygen, silicon, sulfur with their lower atomic numbers. A secondary issue is that the excitation energies of the X-ray source (in the gun) vary in intensity depending upon multiple factors, and there isn't a "one size fits all" X-ray generator that works over the entire periodic table. To excite the low atomic number elements efficiently you need a lower energy source, and vice versa for high atomic number elements. My guess is that the guns are tuned for optimal operation somewhere between the iron group and gold and its neighbors, but well away from oxygen, etc. There are other factors such as sensitivity of the X-ray detector itself as a function of X-ray energy (and thus as a function of atomic number) and absorption of neighboring materials (for example, the 'window' that protects the sensitive X-ray detector crystal) which make detection of the low atomic number elements difficult with X-ray devices.

Got it. I didn't understand the question (nor the answer). I was thinking you were addressing the issue your pal brought up (that he saw in another video) about 12x15 in^2 coil being very sensitive to Recovery Speed setting. After that my brain went off the tracks.

Isn't that the same setting? (See P51 of Operation Manual, table/graphic under heading EQUINOX 600/800 Equivalent Recovery Speeds.)

Nice! Although that Carson City dime has one of the highest mintages of any -CC in any denomination, it's still a great find, particularly in the Eastern US. The condition of your two dimes are pretty high except for the dings, which unfortunately degrade them severely (as I'm sure you know). Still, that -CC is a trophy in my book.

Found these highlighted in the Winter 2018-19 issue of Popular Mechanics: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Milwaukee-Medium-Heated-Gloves-with-Battery-and-Charger-561-21M/305584019 You're going to pay, but maybe we're getting to a high-tech solution that really keeps your hands warm, not just the painful barely above freezing of most solutions. As you know, the more focused you can be when detecting, the more successful. Being distracted by cold hands just detracts from your performance.

Thanks, Jeff. Always enjoy your videos. What coil was on Gary's TDI?

Is he talking about a specific detector? The only detector I have with an iron bias adjustment is the Minelab Equinox 800, and it doesn't seem that what he's saying here (emphasized part) fits my knowledge of it.

Such determinations are subject to two things: assumptions and measurement uncertainty. Here both are present, although the assumptions likely outweigh the measurment uncertainties in this case. The density of naturally occuring gold is not fixed, because it's not pure gold (what most assume) but rather an alloy of gold and other metals. Those other metals are typically copper and silver, but there are several other metalic elements which will alloy with gold (which in most cases reduces the density of the alloy to a value below that of pure gold). So in reality you have many metals in the metallic part of the 'nugget'. Bottom line is that assuming the gold part has a density of 19.3 g/cc (or equivalently a specific gravity of 19.3) is erroneous. Further, the density of quartz varies, not pure silicon dioxide crystal, but when you include impurities and voids, there is no magic number. Measurement uncertainties can take multiple forms as well, but the most likely two culprits are precision and accuracy. Accuracy is related to how 'off' a measurement is compared to a standard source. If your scale reads 151 g for a sample and 149 g for a standard (known, calibrated) weight of 150 g then you have to correct the 151 g. Most people don't bother buying standards to calibrate their scales, they just assume the scale is reading accurately. The second part -- precision -- results from the least significant amount of readout the scale provides. Suppose you have a scale which only reads out in single grams (without any decimal places) and you measure 7 grams. Suppose you also have 7.00 grams of standard and confirm that those standards also give a reading of 7 grams. You've done the calibration (that's good) but consider that if you put a 6.51 g specimen or a 7.49 g specimen on the scale, each would also read 7 g. Finally, how sure are you that the specimen contains quartz as opposed to some other mineral such as calcite? And could it possibly have more than one mineral present? All of these issues together must be kept in mind when reaching a conclusion of the amount of gold present.

I've always wondered myself what 'professional cleaning' even means. I can say the same about 'professional restoration' of antiques and art. It's not like all the professionals have some magic machine that will produce the same result. It's also true that in most cases (probably all cases in coin cleaning) that after completion, some (most?) experts in that particular field will be able to tell that the cleaning has occurred. My approach has been to do a minimum to be able to see a coin's date and mintmark. I previously soaked in water with car wash soap (less caustic in general than dish soap) but since decided to leave out the soap, so now I just soak in water. For many coins (especially silver coins) that's all it takes to get it looking nice. Coins made with copper alloys, though, at a minimum still show discolartion and often scaling/growth which in some cases obscures the date and/or mintmark. My next step is to use a fingernail to try and scrape off the crud (technical term ?). However, that can leave permanent damage. My rationalization is that if I can't see the date+MM then what good is it? Short of being able to tell by the coins features that it's definitely valuable (I've never found anything like that) it's numismatically worthless until I know the date and MM, and I'm not going to pay someone to 'professionally clean' a coin just in the 1/1000 chance that it has value that I might lose with my fingernail scrape. Having said all that, if I knew of a less invasive way of (inexpensively) determining the date+MM then I would switch to that. Once I know the date+MM I can decide if the value potential is significant enough to halt and seek professional advice. (Such a fortunate result hasn't happened yet in my case.) But also, as of now, I'm still in limbo as to what my next steps are when the answer is "not valuable enough", and thus (see below) my current research. Coincidentally, on a whim I just bought for $10 (and opened the package this AM, so no time to read it yet) a ~25 page book titled: COIN/RELIC CLEANING and PRESERVATION by Robert E. Granville (copyright 1990). I also have another book titled Cleaning and Preservation of Coins and Medals by Gerhard Welter (published by Sanford J. Durst). Originally written in 1976 in German, more recent printings include Paper Money Restoration and Preservation by James J. Curto. I've read some of this (the part relevant to my finds) and have picked up some chemicals to start experimenting on coins of little/no value, but haven't proceeded to that next step. So, if learned completely does the information in these books give (with practice) the expertise to be a 'professional' in the sense of the standard warnings? Are the authors themselves even such experts? I like to steer towards precise, repeatable endeavors and practices. Cleaning of coins (and the acceptance of those efforts) are way more subjective than that, but AFAIK it's the best we have right now.

Welcome! The Minelab Equinox 800 (more so than the 600) is excellent for small natural gold. You can spend many hours (days?) reading posts here about the Equinox, including some regarding its ability finding native gold. I recommend contacting dealer Gerry McMullen (https://www.detectorprospector.com/profile/182-gerry-in-idaho/) when you're ready to purchase. And you may want to check out this organization: https://www.coloradoprospector.com/

That's a great find! 3rd toughest to find (not counting the 1942/1 overdates) after 21-D and the Holy Grail of Mercs -- 1916-D. I actually have both 21's but the -D was inherited from an uncle and the plain, which I found when a kid, is badly worn. It looks like you have a couple scarce IH's -- 1864-L and 1866? Did you find those metal detecting? Those old (blue) Whitman folders bring back a lot of memories. The use of the plugs on the rare dates wasn't consistent over the years. I see your Merc book has the 1916-D plugged. Mine (I think I have it -- empty -- somewhere) never had the plug. One I find interesting is the Liberty Head nickel (V-nickel) folder which at one time had the 1913 plugged. (I think later they just left that date out of the folder entirely, although I'm not sure about that.) With only five 1913's V-nickels ever minted and all accounted for, I doubt anyone will ever have a need to pull the plug out. ?

Thanks, Strick. (I'm still envious of your recent double "once in a lifetime" finds. ?) The pocket watch looks to be all there, but the corrosion is so bad I think it will take some serious cleaning/soaking to even get it open. I do like the scroll work on the outer case -- makes me think it's not the cheapest pocket watch sold at the time it was made. Do you have some ideas on how to clean it up without irreversible damage? I typically soak my finds in water thinking that won't hurt them, but obviously there are exeptions and I'm pretty sure this is one! I also was wondering about the pulltabs but I'm pretty sure I know the answer -- discrimination. I was much more likely to ignore the zone between US nickels and US zinc pennies ('Zincolns') this year than last. However for 2019 I'm going to loosen that requirement. My feeling now (which actually repeats/copies things that others here have said, including Steve H.) is that often I spend more time trying to figure out if a target is worth digging than if I just dig it! One obvious exception is in dry conditions where digging holes is more likely to damage the sod. As evidence for my above theory, at the end of the year (after reading some posts here about Tesoro) I picked up a used Vaquero and took it out in one of my parks to a spot I had never hunted before. Since there is only a slngle discrimination threshold and I love nickels ? I set it below nickels. I ended up digging about 10 ring & beavertail (R&B) pulltabs in a couple hours -- among the highest R&B totals and for sure the highest rate of those for the year.

That's an understatement!! 61 Indian Heads alone is more than a lifetime for most US coin hunters, and look at all that silver! I'd call my whole year successful with just one Walking Liberty half (yet to find my first silver half dollar). Although I'm sure the Eqx helped, it's obvious you have a lot more going for you than just the detector. Hope 2019 brings you even more good stuff.

Yes, quite different in the US compared to many other countries (even our close neighbor Canada). For almost 50 years the US government has stubbornly tried to get its citizens to use $1 coins: Eisenhowers, Susan B Anthonys, Sacagaweas, presidentials. None have stuck. The $1 note continues to be printed in massive quantities. When many of us were kids and silver coins still in circulation the half dollar was common to see. Once they went to clad that rapidly faded. I don't recall receiving more than 1 or 2 halves in change over the last 30 years! Meanwhile the penny (now even more worthless being made of copper coated zinc which begins to eat itself almost immediately when in the wet ground) has no respect amongst the public yet continues to get distributed in change. Most coin hunters get the feeling that they are intentionally thrown down, being so worthless. I don't know what the lowest price item you can buy today but it's way more than a penny AFAIK. 1399 US coins (5.3 per hour of searching) found in 2018, including the ones I care about -- Wheaties and other old coins -- with only 1 half dollar and 1 dollar. I could do better if I were concentrating on modern coins, which I'm not. There are posters here who do much better, particularly those who hunt the popular beaches. But those from Europe, for example (some who post their results here) actually have a chance to supplement their incomes with modern coins. Not really the case here from what I've seen.

Since I keep records of all my hunts I've gotten into the habit of summarizing the years' finds. First the raw numbers (with 2017 numbers in parentheses): Hours in the field: 263.5 (228). Number of hunts: 80 (65). Common coin (clad, Memorial) face value: $78.68 ($20.65). Different sites searched: 15 (11). [Note: 6 of this years' sites were permissions compared to just 2 last year.] Pulltabs (all types): 382 (524). "Old" US coins (see photo): 22 (8). Wheat cents: 90 (61). By "old US coins" I mean any silver coin, Buffalo nickels or earlier, Indian Head cents or earlier. About 2/3 of my old coin finds have already been reported on this website. The photo (below) shows six silver dimes and six silver nickels ("Warnicks") for a total of 12 silvers. Also shown is one V-nickel (next to the dimes), seven Buffies, and two Indian Heads (bottom row). Also shown on the bottom row are a 1917 Canadian large cent, my first ever (and only, to date) dollar (modern ?) and half dollar (clad ?). The nickels are the big surprise since I hadn't found a Warnick since 1972(!) and back in the spring when a thread was begun (paraphrased) "what are you hoping to find first with your Equinox" I responded "my first ever Buffalo nickel". As you can see I found seven, the first two without dates and then a run of five with dates. None of the coins shown has any value over metal content (silver) or face (the rest) since they are all common dates. My best Wheatie find of the year was a 1924-D which I reported on in detail earlier this year. Although I don't hunt jewelry as many do, I sometimes find some anyway. My second photo shows my better jewelry finds and my best relic of the year, a Civil War cartridge box plate size and front face are quite similar to belt buckels but the backside is different. (I wrote this up earlier in the year -- found on 4th of July!) Just found the pocket watch on my last hunt of the year (Sunday 30 Dec). It's in very bad shape as you can see. I think it's gold plated -- you can see one very shiny spot. Probably never was a valuable piece.... The only piece of jewerly which has more than a few dollars value is the amethyst crystal in the gold bezel. Interestingly that is the only jewelry find my wife has ever wanted -- I happily gave it to her after I photo'ed it. ? So why the change in production (both clad coins and old coins)? There are several small reasons but I think the big one is the use of an 11 inch coil (on the Equinox). Another thing I wrote up previously is that I was 'forced' to use a coil larger than my previous habit of 5 inch to 6 inch diameter and I was able to cover a lot more ground as a result.

I don't know that. (My year end report will show up on New Year's Day.) Sure, if you get the perfect (e.g. fairgrounds, old church) unsearched site, but how many of those are still around? Well done, and keep learning that detector!

The US has one detector that runs both selectable and simultaneous multi-frequency: White's V3i (and sister VX3). According to Steve's review page it was introduced in 2009. Although (AFAIK) not selectable MF, both the Fisher CZ series from the 1990's and the White's DFX (also 1990's?) were among the pioneering simultaneous multifrequency detectors. Would it make financial sense to now put engineering/design/fabrication time into selectable MF detectors (that aren't also simultaneous MF)? The competition, as you've shown, is steep. It may be too late even for some of the recent releases such as the Makro Kruzer Multi and Nokta Anfibio Multi to make much of a dent in the market. (From what I've read they are excellent detectors, but selectable-ONLY MF may be yesterday's technology....) I'm hoping for new concept detectors from First Texas, White's, and Garrett. We don't need any more (sad) Tesoro stories.

Welcome, WP45! Wish I were closer; I'd be glad to go treasure hunting with you.

This is interesting and it isn't the first time this topic has arisen on this forum. When I read it previously I figured I was doing something suboptimally, such as not centering the coil on the target. But since then I've concentrated more on that and I still get 11's and 14's on some nickels. I also sometimes get iron grunts which is unusual for targets in this range, nickels or otherwise. My rough estimate is that nickels within about 3 inches of the surface do give the tight 12-13 but deeper than that they start to spread out a bit. Assuming I am getting the coil centered then a few other possibilities for the TID spread I'm experiencing are: nearby target interference, different detector settings, lower signal to noise (where 'signal' means the nickel target and 'noise' is the ground), and even variations in detector performance. (Blaming the detector is too often a spurious excuse, IMO, so I tend to downplay that possibility until all others are eliminated. OTOH, it could be an issue, I suppose.) FWIW, the majority (over 90%) of my Equinox coin hunting to date has been in Park 1 with ground grab and five custom tones, but I have varied some of the parameters such as recovery speed (sometimes 6, sometimes 5), and iron bias (anywhere from 0 to 4). I have yet to notice any tightening/broadening of the nickel TID signals, however, regardless of settings.