GB_Amateur

That's exactly how I hunt. More/less if half my numbers are 12-13 I'm going to dig. In my soil I almost never get any 10's or 15's on nickels, but I won't say "never". The deeper the nickel the less 'pure' the TID. If you want deep (and old) you better be flexible. My deeper nickels (and thus most of my old nickels) will pretty much always give a few 11's or 14's at a minimum.

Sweet!! And great advice from your hunting partner. Although the 1853 (plain) is relatively common, as the grade goes up the value grows exponentially. Yours looks particularly 'spotless' although grading from photos is pretty much impossible when trying to split hairs between uncirculated grades. Only 10 have been graded higher than MS-64 by PCGS: http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/7767 You might want to get it looked at by a local professional (coin dealer) and from there possibly get it professionally graded. Regardless, one of the finds of a lifetime, and well deserved.

I'll defer to your wife (who surely knows best) on that opinion. ?

I've grown to despise the cliche' "you get what you pay for." I also feel strongly that the most important component of successful metal detecting is site. At least my most successful (coin) hunts have occurred not because of what detector I was using nor of my skill level, but the fact that I was hunting a loaded location. When I was researching detectors for one of my purchase rounds, the thing that caused me to question the Ace series was their lack of ground balancing capability. I understand that lower frequencies (Aces are somewhere in the 8-10 kHz range) are less susceptible to mineralization, but doesn't that only get you so far? Still, making metal detecting affordable brings in way more hobbyists (and revenue) than trying to create a detector that works in the maxiumum number of conditions. Garrett has long known this and their Ace Series has added significant evidence.

The dual field TDI coils haven't received the smoothest response. For starters they didn't work well in Australia's mineralized conditions which led to the release of mono coils ("Aussie mono" or "Oz" versions). Possibly related, their 7.5"/3" smaller dual field coil received a fair amount of negative reviews. Was this ever resolved? White's continues to market the larger dual field coil in the US in both of their (only remaining) TDI models, so it seems they, at least, feel they've weathered the storm. As a sidelight, there are many aftermarket coils that have been made in both Australia and US that work on all(?) of the TDI models.

Welcome, Majuba Man! As you know, we've met in person at Gerry's training expedition. Thanks, again, for befriending me. Oh, and I'm getting a propane 2-burner camp stove for Christmas, thanks to your recommendation. ?

You didn't say where you are located (a state would at least give us some idea if you might have highly mineralized ground). Hot rocks will give those very low negative readings. But in some sense variable ground is a lot like hot rocks so maybe you already pegged the cause. Check for repeatability. That is, do the locations of these negative signals appear like real targets or do they seem to move around?

Have you done a (auto) ground balance?

I disagree. It's always a wise decision to leave open the door that one may have erred, though. However in this case there was no error (IMO ?). You didn't take sides; you didn't name names. Rather you attempted to defuse, and better yet reiterate the value of this site and one of the principles upon which it was founded. Again you took the humble view ("...I think...") so as not to put words in Steve's mouth. And again there isn't a sane person who would bet against this, even receiving very high odds. This site isn't just Steve's (although obviously it couldn't exist in anything near its present valuable form without him). It depends upon the cooperation of all posters, and that includes civility.

One (negative) issue with typical test garden is the difficulty in modification. That also means (unless you have lots of time and lots of space) you are limited in what you can test. A modifiable test garden is preferred, IMO. A quick-and-dirty option is to fill quart sized Ziploc freezer bags with soil, enough to result in ~1 inch thick dirt when laying flat. Not only can you then vary the 'depth' of the target by stacking them, but in addition you can distribute trash items (nails, pulltabs, bottle caps, can slaw, etc.) both at the same level but also 'deeper' and 'shallower' at the transitions between bags. You'll get the most value from a test garden when it's closest to being like the real world. The ideal case of a deep coin with no trash near it is rare compared to targets at moderate (even shallow) depths interfered with by nearby trash.

Running out of days (especially decent weather days) in 2018. Yesterday I was hunting my favorite park that I've been searching over the past 4 years. I was basically doing some experimentation with settings and detectors. Going over a grassy slope in the shade of a large tree I got a very strong, irregular signal which turned out to be a recent spill -- 2013-D Quarter, two 2017-D dimes, 2006-D dime, 2005-D nickel, and (only 'old' coin) 1964-D nickel. All coins were on the surface of the ground, under the grass blades. Oh, there was one more coin amongst those -- a shiny penny. I figured 'typical Zincoln' but put it in my 'coins' pocket (Zincolns usually go in the trash pouch but get sorted later). It's gotten to the point where I don't even look at the dates on Zincolns since most of the time I can't discern them, they are eaten up so badly. Just toss them in their own jar. When I got home and was sorting through the finds (1940 Jeffy being the oldest but nothing to get excited about since they made a gazillion of them), I noticed the shiny penny had an -S mintmark (see photo below). The 2005 date had me scratching my head since I thought (and later confirmed) that 2005-S coins were only minted for inclusion in proof sets. Only 3,273,000 made (compare that to over 7.7 billion combined between 2005 plain and 2005-D cents). Second lowest mintage penny I've ever found, either detecting or searching through bank rolls. Phrunt was just talking about the "what was that doing there?!" question we often asks ourselves when identifying unusual finds. Just another one for me.

Good news! It will take time to master but you'll enjoy the ride. Make sure to read the manual (if you haven't already) and see the following forum posts that Steve has made a nice index for:

Any USB output (computer, dedicated charger, etc.) should work. Here's what I use for all my Equinox charging: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OT6YUIY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Does the 1853 have arrows next to the date? If 'No', it is a semi-key date with only 91,000 minted. Still no numismatic value given the hole. ? Exciting finds, nonetheless!

Only thing I can help you with are the Eagle buttons. Air test in Field 1, I get 22-24 depending upon orientation and distance. That's right where aluminum screw caps show up, although hopefully your battlefields aren't contaminated with those. Bronze ('copper') pennies can also be here, particularly if they have considerable scale/corrosion. I've never ignored a 22 or higher TID target unless it was so terribly strong and large as to indicate a can lid, roof or siding sheet metal, etc.

Weclome, Michael! Lots of (old) coin and relic hunters here, including me. (Well, I didn't mean the hunters are old, but that is also often the case. ? ) Looking forward to you posting about your experience and knowledge.

Ad says they are NiMH....

Ok, Brian, you confirm I got at least one of my age conclusions correct. Yes, I agree 100% that the main takeaway from the class is confidence. That always sounds so simple but it is probably the most difficult thing to accomplish, especially when learning on your own.

Those of you who frequent this forum (especially the general gold forum) are familiar with posts by Gerry in Idaho (https://www.detectorprospector.com/profile/182-gerry-in-idaho/) who among other things is a full-time multiline dealer with 40 years of metal detecting experience and 20 years detecting for native gold. He conducts four 3-day training classes each year, two in central Nevada (Rye Patch) and two in Southeast Oregon. The tuition varies depending upon whether or not and which detector you've bought from him. You can see the details on his website (http://gerrysdetectors.com/training/), on one of his Ebay ads (e.g. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Minelab-GPX-5000-Metal-Detector-with-7-Coils-3-Days-Gold-Nugget-Training/273599397260?hash=item3fb3cb7d8c:g:2zsAAOSw5tNb-KBu:rk:1:pf:0&LH_ItemCondition=3000) or by calling him. He hasn't asked me (nor did he know until I told him in an e-mail today) that I'm writing this review, so everything here is strictly my view/opinion from having taken the class. Everything is from memory so there may be some errors but I'll count on responses from others in attendance to correct my inaccuracies. Overview: The class consists of one day of 'lecture' and two days of 'lab' (in-field experience). Gerry himself conducts most of the lecture part (Lunk: https://www.detectorprospector.com/profile/401-lunk/ talked about coil design and applications) but the meat is the hands-on training for which is provided an expert staff of assistants. Each day consisted of (approximately) 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM contact with 30-60 minute lunch break. Demographics: There were 16 students in attendance (18 signed up with 2 no-shows) and a total of five instructors (besides Gerry and Lunk: Scott, Mark, and Spencer) for a very generous 1::3 teacher to student ratio. The 16 students were from the following states (I may have missed a couple): California, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia. My estimation of age split is two younger than 50 years old. (I'd like to think I, at age 65, was about the median but probably in the highside tail....?) All were male although some brought spouses/significant others. Four of the five instructors were from Idaho and the fifth from Nevada. (I think 2/5 were under 50 but I may be being generous. ?) We wore nametags with first name, state of residence, and detector. Location, etc: Many here are familiar with the Rye Patch area, a high (4000 ft elevation), relatively flat desert with little vegetation. The site of the actual class is only 15 miles driving distance from the I-80 superhighway and all but the last 1.5 miles are on maintained 2-lane 'gravel' road. One student actually arrived daily (by commute from nearby town) in a 2wd compact (Ford Escape?) which was likely challenging over the last 1.5 miles of rutted single lane road. The area where we met had several 'primitive' (no ammenities) camping spots and about half the attendees took advantage of that, all the way from tents to fully-outfitted travel trailers. The weather was quite cooperative (typically mid-60's and sunny daytime but freezing or lower overnight) with no precip. The lecture part was outdoors with seating provided. No sound system (but Gerry didn't need one). Requirements: basically few, but you were allowed to train on one detector (pre-approved to make sure at least one instructor had familiarity with it) and any accompanying family members could sit in the lecture but otherwise would receive no field training. Detectors: nine students brought the Minelab GPZ 7000, three brought Minelab GPX's (mostly 4500's but I think there may have been one 5000) and one SDC 2300, 1 1/2 White's Golmaster 24k and 1 1/2 Minelab Equinox 800. (1 1/2 because Gerry made an exception on the "one detector per student" rule for someone to train one day on each.) Day 1 Lecture: began with personal introductions of all 21 (students and staff). Gerry related some of his many experiences in the morning session, including lots of detector info. Afternoon began with explanations equipment he brought for sale (and why he stakes his reputation on them) then continuation of general detecting advice. The day ended with a demonstration of how the various technologies (PI, VLF, ZVT) respond to various types and sizes of native gold in air tests. Much of the day was a review for me since I've read a lot of articles, forum posts, and books on finding gold. The highlight was the last part where the different gold specimens were exposed to the detectors and the responses (or lack of such) were demonstrated. Days 2&3 lab / hands-on experience: As mentioned above, this was for me by far the most valuable part of the course. Students were split into five groups (typically 3 per group) and assigned instructors for anywhere from 2 to 4 hours of personal training. The division was by detector type, so there were three Z7000 groups, one PI group, and one VLF group. The instructors were rotated such that each group experienced the expertise of each of the five instructors. Their styles varied but I learned something from each. For example, it was interesting to see the different setups preferred between instructors for the same detector (in my case the Eqx 800). One added feature is that if a student got a promising signal (verified by an instructor) the others were given the option of watching the dig and (more importantly) trying their own detectors pre-recovery to monitor the response. Day 2 training was close to the lecture site and day 3 was another part of the area. Summary/Conclusion: I was one of the few who paid the full tuition (since I had not bought my detector from Gerry) and it was worth every penny. The comaraderie was great (kind of like on this website ?) with (as far as I experienced) no bickering and a lot of encouragement and support among the participants. There was not a weak link among the instructors. I was left wishing for more, but that only emphasizes my satisfaction of 3 full days of instruction/training. I think a majority of GPZ swingers found gold but the rest of us (PI's and VLF's) drew blanks (well, until the encore, for me: https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/topic/8195-lost-my-gold-virginity/).

Although I first searched for native gold with a detector in late 2015 (3 years ago) I've really only been able to spend less than 75 hours in the field due to the distance I live from detectable gold. Add to that the fact that even though I've spent a lot of time reading about how to find gold with a metal detector I really didn't know what I was doing. All that changed last month when I took Gerry McMullen's in-field training class. "All that" includes what I report here. I'll be creating a separate post reviewing Gerry's class so I'll only quickly set the stage now. Rye Patch, NV, north central part of section 17 -- 32N32E, a location that has seen more than its share of detectors of all types. I brought my Equinox 800 and (at the time) new 6 inch coil fitted with a homemade polycarbonate skidplate (copied from Steve H.'s design for his 11 inch coil). After 3 days of training I stayed around for an extra 2 days on my own (actually, Earl from Idaho also stayed and we compared finds during and at the end of each day). On the last afternoon of my last day, hunting only about 50 meters from the location where the 'classroom' part of the class was conducted, I got a familiar signal and scraped off about an inch of soil with my boot, finding I had moved the target. I say 'familiar' because I'd been digging tiny foil (cigarette pack?) pieces, tiny wire, and lots of bullet shards for 3 1/2 days. I was in Gold 1 mode, threshold = 8, recovery speed = 4, iron bias = 6, ground tracking, sensitivity = 19, using the WM-08 module attached to SunRay Pro Gold headphones. I got an ID of +1 which I had been told by the instructors was where much of the Rye patch area small gold was hitting on the Eqx 800. The signal was loud and clear. Expecting another piece of lead I was surprised to see a faint yellow color on the recovered piece. I noticed Earle was near his campsite and I tried to hide my excitement when I showed him my find. He (diplomatically) told me he wasn't sure that it was gold based upon both its color and a scratch on one face. His alternate theory was that I had found a piece of brass bullet jacket. I countered with the fact that it wasn't at all jagged (like most bullet fragments I had found) but in fact had the rounded characteristics of metal that had seen a lot of natural (water, wind) wear. But I certainly took his concerns to heart. I returned to the 'patch' ? with a couple hours remaining before sunset. It took me the full two hours but right before calling it quits I got another solid +1 ID, this one about 2 inches deep, that also showed the sought after yellow color, this time more pronounced (gold-like) in color. It was a smaller piece but also showed weathering. As it turned out, my 'backup' find was needed. I didn't get home for another week, and then after weighing both pieces I decided I needed some under 0.1 gram calibration weights for my milligram scale so another few days went by. When I finally was able to calibrate the scale (it was pretty close to being accurate, within 1 mg at the low end of weight) and after fumbling around making a sling to hold the larger piece I found the following: Larger sample (1st piece found) had a dry weight of 171 mg (just over 2 1/2 grains) while the smaller weighed in at 121 mg (about 1 3/4 grains). That was the good news. Repeated measurements of the larger piece suspended in water gave a displaced volume of 16 microliters (from a dry vs. wet difference measurement of 16 mg). Dividing that out gives a specific gravity of between 10 and 11 (with an uncertainty in the neighborhood of 1 on this scale), definitely nowhere near gold. In addition, I later accidentally broke the larger piece into smaller pieces. Gold doesn't break. Although a specific gravity measurement of the smaller piece could be done, this would tax both me (trying to get it into a thread sling) and my scale, which would likely give a single digit reading (that is, < 10 mg displacement weight) for the divisor and introduce even more uncertainty into the calculation. Of course maybe I'm afraid to know the truth. One positive sign is that I tried to break the smaller piece (using my fingernail -- that's what broke the large one) without success. So, what is the imposter? I don't think it's iron pyrite since it gave a strong metal signal and ID of +1 on the Eqx. It could be some kind of alloy, possibly of copper and silver (but are those found in native form in Rye Patch?) or even some kind of Au-Ag or Au-Ag-Cu (electrum?) alloy. But, regardless, if my specific gravity measurement is anywhere close it can't contain much gold. The photo shows clearly the difference in color of the (original) two finds. (Oh, even though my find was half a world away from Australia I thought it might be good to put things in perspective for those Down Under who aren't well versed in the size of our US dime.) The upper two pieces are the remains of the broken larger piece. I did lose about 14 milligrams in smaller fragments when it broke and those were scattered on my dirty workshop floor. (Good luck finding that 14 mg amongst all the metal shavings, even with a detector. I'd have to sweep the floor and pan the refuse!) I'm interested in reading your opinions, both of what the larger piece really is but also whether you think the smaller piece looks legit.

I think a lot of people were thinking along these lines but for whatever reason (on my part, lack of guts for one thing but also lack of confidence in my detecting ability/experience) kept it from being said. Well stated, Steve. Actually the same holds true (IMO) in many of the reported differences in the two firmwares we've been reading from day 1. I'm still unsure I can see/feel/hear any differences between the two other than the depth indicator change (which I hardly ever used before nor since). I certainly have my own perception of (minor) differences but haven't done the diligent testing required to be able to report with confidence. One thing this thread has emphasized to me is how difficult it must be for engineers to 1) sort through customer bug reports, and 2) apply a change which addresses concerns without messing up something else. On the Equinox there are so many different combinations of settings made available to the user and and way more (with software change 'knobs') to the engineer. I can see why it's apparently the exception for manufacturers to issue software upgrades. (This seems to be deja vu when compared to the Fisher F75 issues First Texas had to deal with, and customer complaints afterward saying it was better before the change.)

I'm impressed about a couple things: 1) you keep a notebook of detector info (and even take it along hunting); 2) you don't let a rainstorm (and presumably less than ideal temperature) in December stop you from hunting. Just reminds me how different Alaska and northern Canada are from middle of lower 48. I guess if you had to await perfect weather (and on top of that, no bugs ?) you'd be forced to sell the detector and find an indoor hobby. I'll never complain about gray 35F days again. (Oh, I have a few of those upcoming; better charge my detector!)

On the second day of searching, my 'tector gave to me, two worn out gloves....

...a lead shard the size of a flea.

I don't know how to overcome this issue, but White's might. I wonder if there is a (hidden) factory reset sequence. (If you leave the battery out long enough would that effectively be a reset?) You were going to need to call them to get a return authorization anyway. Maybe talking to a tech or engineer first would save all concerned a lot of effort/expense.