GB_Amateur

I assume this is the unit sold by Quest. All posters -- a request -- please give the full name of the manufacturer and product when making your posts. Save us non-experts from having to do a Google search.

Since working with the Eqx I've suffered occasionally with poor pinpointing. I've also seen posts from others having the same problem. There are some obvious explanations: 1) poor pinpointing technique; 2) nearby targets pulling the pinpoint location to the wrong place; 3) ?? Since it continues to happen to me, even trying to compensating for #1 and #2 above, I've come up with another contender: non-horizontal target orientation. E.g. vertical. This is something a test setup/garden might be able to determine but I don't yet have one of those. Non-horizontal target orientation may be a rare situation. Yesterday discussing this with an experienced (coin) detectorist I was told that it is extremely rare in his view. Still, I have trouble figuring out why, even with careful technique, I often miss a target location by several inches. Anyone out there want to express his/her opinions?

https://www.amazon.com/TaoTronics-Bluetooth-Transmitter-Receiver-Simultaneously/ (From the ad:) APTx LL, 10 hour run-time. Looks like you could pair 2 of these together for a build-your-own (Garrett) Z-link. What am I missing?

This is the #1 reason I prefer the White's Bullseye TRX to the Garrett Propointer AT (aka 'carrot'). The second reason is the uni-directionality (more sensitive at the tip) of the TRX compared to the omni-directionality (more sensitive along the side) of the carrot. Sounds like the Fisher/Tek PI has the proportional response of the TRX. But didn't Carl M. say it's omni-directional? What's your experience with that?

Nice solution. I'd like to try myself but I have none of those detectors. Are these lower rod sections (DFX/MXT and Racer/Kruzer) available standalone or do you need the entire detectors to pull off this mod? Just this afternoon I tried the F75 S-section but unfortunately the Eqx rod has too large of a diameter to fit into the F75 S-shaft. That would have been a killer combo. Given the popularity of the Eqx, I'm wondering if an aftermarket supplier might be seeing an opportunity here....

Quest (formerly Deteknix) also has a unit similar to the Z-link. Below is a comparison: Minelab WM08 -- proprietary to the Eqx, 18 hours est. run time, receiver module only (transmitter is in the Eqx control box) -- $259 Garrett Z-link -- compatible with any detector, 20 hours est. run time, transmitter attaches to detector control unit + receiver -- $127 Quest Wire free Mate -- compatible with any detector, 33 hours est. run time, T/R units which are similar to the Z-link -- $100 (internet price) https://www.ebay.com/itm/Quest-Wirefree-Mate-Wireless-Transmitter-Receiver-Audio-System-/292378371918?hash=item44131be74e I don't know the speed of the Quest unit. It is advertised as 'low latency' but that isn't specific AFAIK. If I didn't already have a WM08 and an old Deteknix T/R set I'd have jumped on Steve's $79 Z-link. Can't believe it isn't sold already.

Good advice on your part; good job of listening and acting on his. I never ignore a TID above 23, even if bouncy, even if from only one direction, as long as I can get it to occasionally repeat. Sure it can be junk, but as your example shows, it can be treasure. (Found a Wheatie on Saturday that lots of people would have ignored and I had missed previously with other detectors because of the masking.) The more experience I get with the Eqx, the more convinced I become that it is an unmasker. That idea is consistent with the finds many people are posting, and in particular it is why people are making good finds in what were thought to be 'hunted out' sites, IMO.

This can actually happen at the mint -- a coin isn't ejected from the die and the next strike is made with the previous coin stuck in the die, resulting in a mirror image face. The numismatic term for this is 'brockage'. If authentic they can have values in the $50 range, depending upon many variables. Of course someone playing around with a soft metal such as lead could produce the same result on a bench using a hammer....

Good points, but on your #2, I suggest testing with small pieces of iron such as nails. Large iron will give high readings -- nickel range and higher. Still a good idea to test those but don't interpret a positive ID on large iron as a detector problem.

My general suggestion is to start out in Park 1 and don't adjust anything except (EMI) noise cancel, ground balance, and gain. BTW, a factory reset may be in order. Definitely know how to do that and/or keep the manual nearby just in case. A) EMI: My experience (and that of many others) with this detector has led me to the conclusion that it is much more sensitive to EMI than typical single frequency detectors, and that's because it has five frequencies to pick up EMI. Remember, EMI makes the detector chirpy when it is motionless. If it's quiet as a mouse when motionless then the issue isn't EMI. The auto noise cancel procedure is the place to start. If still noisy, go through each of the 19 settings manually and make sure to wait about 5 seconds on each to let the detector adjust. Choose the quietest of the 19. If still chirping on the quietest setting then turn down the gain (see below). B) Ground balance: The manual and many users say to just leave it set at 0 and the multi-IQ will take care of things. This is the best way to start unless you are in an area where mineralization is really an issue. C) Gain: the default (20) is pretty hot, and as others have said you can turn it down and still get lots of punch. I'd leave at 20 unless the EMI mitigation above didn't work. If you need to eliminate EMI with lowering the gain then just go down 1 step at a time (again, waiting at least 5 seconds between steps) until it goes away. The EMI will typically be different as you move around in a park if it's the kind that is coming from power lines (often buried), etc. so you may need to (or want to) adjust down or up as you change locations. Default is to use discrimination. The horseshoe button toggles between that and the override of no discrimination. If you're used to discrimination/notching then I suggest using it. If you typically use other detectors wide open then go with that. Lastly, don't expect to hit a home run the first time up to the plate. It's easy ('cause it happened to me) to read all the reports here and think the finds are going to just pop out of the ground. You need experience to grow confidence, and no detector is going to produce goodies where they aren't. Don't get hung up with depth. That will come later. (My deepest coin is 6 inches after 67 hours of use, and most are in the 3 inch range). If you don't have a test garden, just start by putting some coins on the ground and see how they sound as you vary the height of the coil. One last thing worth noting and remembering: the Eqx doesn't have an overload indication when you are over a huge chunk of metal. Learn to lift the coil when you get a strong signal and see how high you can get it before it goes quiet. Also the pinpoint mode can be quite helpful in these cases, although learning the pinpoint mode is a lesson (or series of lessons) all unto itself. It's unfortunate you don't have an experienced Eqx user nearby to go through its use with you. In the absence of that, your best teacher is yourself. Dig it all and don't expect instant success. Don't take anyone's TID values as gospel. Learn those yourself when testing and as you are digging all. As you build confidence you can start playing around with the zillions of settings, but do that one adjustment at a time and don't be afraid to do a reset if things get squirrelly. This detector has so many settings it will take a lifetime to try them all, but in the meantime you'll be enjoying the ride!

Apparently this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001P30BWI/ref=asc_df_B001P30BWI5495495/

All these months you've been waiting, I assume you've been reading the positive reviews as well as the (fewer) negative ones. It's now up to you to decide. After you get the detector and try it out you should have all the info you need to make the decision.

I think the TDI dual field 12 inch and the TDI mono 12 inch (also called 'Oz' and 'Aussie') are indistinguishable with one possible exception (labeling) and a second more conclusive exception: whether or not there is a copper coil on the inner ring. The easy way to determine is to use a handheld pinpointer and investigate if the inner ring contains metal. If 'yes' it's the dual field, otherwise it's the mono. White's also makes two small (7.5 inch) format coils in both dual field and mono. But the 6 inch that came with the SPP is a mono. I've opened mine up and modified it (adding weight so it would sink in water) and can confirm that.

Rick, would you mind going a bit more into detail about what you meant here. Feels like something you expect a lot of people to understand, but it missed me. Thanks.

Apologize if I'm telling you something you already know. The TDI/SPP and the TDI/SL are the same with a few exceptions: 1) No conductivity switch on the SPP, 2) no delay adjustment on the SPP, 3) different standard coils -- SL has the 12 inch dual field; SPP has the 12 inch mono and a 6 inch mono. The used market prices on Ebay don't show a big difference between the two. Over the last 3 months the prices are in the $600-$800 range, with some variation due to number of coils or added accessories, and other variations which are just the nature of online buying/selling. The sold count (I only look at sold listings) for working units is 1 SPP (ended just last week) and 6 SL's. The heavier, nicknamed 'big box' versions (original Pulse Scan TDI and the Pro) are more expensive on average but the price range of the original does overlap that of the SL. Bidding on the Pro models has been spirited (approachin the new price) and they don't come up often. The $1100 special White's is running (mentioned above by Ridge Runner) is a pretty good deal if you want to go for brand new, full warranty. That Miner John coil is highly regarded and for many applications possibly the best choice if you're going the single coil route. But if the budget is tight, the used market is reasonable, IMO.

If you're confident you have a site with pre-1970 activity (preferably pre-1960) then you just need to put in the hours. Part of that is learning the Eqx. The other part is spending the time 'mowing' the site to find the old coins. This year my old coin (mostly Wheaties) find rate is about 1 per 3 hours of hunting. Obviously good sites will produce much better. It's like fishing -- you often have to make a lot of casts before you land a nice one. Persevere.

I'm curious as to whether going to single frequency will pick it up in the cases where multi- goes silent. That was my first thought. Mark, I think your ideas (videos and here) are rubbing off on me. ?

Agree, Norvic. I also prefer the drawings/sketches/paintings as opposed to photos. They really got the imagination humming. Today's magazine illustrations (ads, articles, covers) are almost exclusively photos.

Try the local library. Tell a librarian your 1 & 2 above, even #3 if you word it differently. They love helping people find information -- that's why they became librarians in the first place.

Would panning it determine the source?

Is the coin a half cent?

You and me both! Welcome, Gatev!

Average of 1 gold find and 6 silvers per hunt?! Obviously you not only have some good sites, but particularly know what you are doing. This sounds like the good old days when virgin ground was abundant. It continually pains me to see the condition of the silver you get on the beaches. Does seawater always do this (I mean around the world)? Land hunting here in the US Midwest, silver coins come out of the ground as pristine as the day they were dropped. (Pennies and nickels, not typically.) I've done just a smidgen of waterway hunting (just a couple creeks) and have yet to find silver there so don't know about that. It seems odd that someone in the US Northeast takes the summer off from detecting and can do so well through the darker (colder) months. Due to the warm weather, schools being on break, and (late summer) creeks being low it seems to be my best hunting time. Maybe I should head up your way when the sun goes to reduced hours. ?

You've ended up with one of the worst receptions with your order, Morris. But I suspect when you get out in the field and start finding things that, based upon previous searches and/or nearby trash targets, you decide wouldn't have been found by other detectors the excitement will be back.

Been doing a bit more thinking, but all of this is speculation (hoping at to be least 'educated' guessing). But based upon what we've found so far, here are some conditions and possible explanations: 1) The war caught the mint off guard. They had to act pretty quickly to find a solution. They had to use metals which weren't required elsewhere (war effort). Although the mint doesn't make their own sheet stock, both they and the suppliers were likely short on staff, working long hours, and dealing with inexperienced fill-in labor. Things like quality control could have suffered. 2) The eventual solution (silver, copper, manganese) may not have been reached initially. 3) Given the first time ever use of manganese in US coinage, it's possible the sheet stock supplier didn't have a reliable manganese source. Possibly (with or without the mint's permission...) they went ahead with a different alloy when the manganese wasn't available. Some things I wonder about: a) assuming what is being experienced is change-in-alloy, intended or not, how widespread was the occurrence? b) was it just certain batches which subsequently were distributed locally as opposed to 'globally' (i.e, widespread throughout the US)? Interesting that we detectorists have a role in solving this mystery -- possibly the first to really notice it. (Well, the book I quoted noticed it, but that may as far as they or their informants went.) Certainly XRF analysis could help a lot but without that technique there is still solid evidence which can be collected by detectorists to lead to solid conclusions.