GB_Amateur

Although pure antimony has a density that is too low, this could be antimony allowed with something heavier. Also, bismuth is a chemical relative of antimony but with higher density. So if appearance is associated with chemical properties then maybe this is a bismuth alloy. I have looked for those and can't find one that matches, though. I'm running out of properties I can think of and have the ability to measure: streak is dark gray; Moh's hardness is ~6 (scratches soda lime glass but is scratched by tool steel). Oh, and the Gold Bug Pro's Fe3O4 gives a high reading, and the closer the coil gets to this unknown sample the higher it gets. That's true in both all-metal and discriminate mode, and seems to be higher response on this scale in discriminate. I don't really understand completely what this means. Given that the sample isn't magnetic it can't be magnetite. So what is this meter reading value really telling me? Finally, I did a resistance measurement using an ohmmeter with curious results. On the lustrous face the resistance was nearly non-existent (less than 1 ohm) and on the flat black face the resistance was imperceptible -- greater than 20 Megohm. I don't think resistance is a particularly useful quantity when it comes to ID'ing rocks/minerals but very low resistance has to be rare. Of the minerals I listed earlier which are in the spec. gr. ballpark (and the measured hardness), ferroselite is intriguing. That is FeSe2, a chemical compound of iron and selenium. It is found in both Colorado and Utah. Nothing is perfect and the images I find on the web appear to show a higher granularity, but otherwise look pretty close. I'm wondering if we are getting close to saturation as far as identifying this specimen here. There are other analysis options (like x-ray fluorescence) but are they worth it? Bottom line is I have a dense ore sample which gives very high metallic readings on both a 19 kHz VLF detector and a 10 microsecond delay PI detector. If I ever run across this in the wild I'll be in better position to draw conclusions, even if those conclusions aren't as sound as I'd like.

Nope, not magnetic, but I agree it does look similar to some photos of samples of magnetite I've seen. My biggest concern lately is that I got the volume wrong, but just measured by a different (related) technique and got the same result: 10.3 cm^3. So spec. gr. really is 7.2 (actually 7.21 to higher significant figures; assume an uncertainty of a few hundredths). Here's a good reference for mineral density (specific gravity), in order. About 1400 names in this list: http://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol6/CM6_273.pdf Here listed between 7.10 and 7.30 are the following: Rammelsbergite, Huttonite, Georgiadesite, Wittite, Pararammelsbergite, Matlockite, Huebnerite, Ecdemite, Calomel, Trogtalite, Cohenite, Safflorite, Acanthite, Argentite, Domeykite, Ferroselite, Hastite, Mendipite, Mimetite, Curite, Finnemanite, Wolframite, Empressite, Tetradymite. (Ancanthite, Argentite, and Wolframite ought to sound familiar.) So far looking up those on this list, I haven't found a good match. But I'm not finished. Some of these are apparently rare. I guess my next concern is that what I have is a rock (so mixture of minerals), not simply a mineral.

OK, here goes -- first time uploading photos and I'm not much of a photographer. Two photos with tape measure in them are taken with flash. Other one was taken in natural (scattered) sunlight. A couple more pieces of evidence: 1) strong rare-earth magnet did not attract. 2) Fisher Gold Bug Pro gave strong response and (surprising to me) a steady discriminator reading of 60 +/- 1 at any orientation. US 5-cent piece "nickel" reads high 50's and zinc penny low-mid 70's. Typically something that gives a reading here is aluminum but I recall some gun shell casings (brass?) being in the 60's as well.

Well, bad news (or maybe not) -- the sample I measured that got a strong response on the the White's TDI isn't bornite. Laying in bed last night I started to suspect the density was wrong. Its mass is about 75 g and for a specific gravity of 5 (bornite is between 5.0 and 5.1) that would mean its volume is 15 ml (or cm^3) and it didn't seem that big. I measured the volume today (by water displacement method) and got 10.3 ml! So its density is 7.2 g/ml which is way too high to be bornite. (More on what it might be shortly.) I then turned the detector back on and tested three other pieces which look very much like the picture Steve posted above, and they gave no noticeable response with the TDI. (I'm assuming Steve meant bornite sounds off with an IB/VLF detector. Presumably the delay of 10 microseconds on my TDI/SPP is long enough to miss detecting the reflected pulse.) So, what ore do I have that gave such a strong response with the TDI? 7.2 is getting up there, and I don't think there are many minerals with spec. gr. at or near this value. One obvious and common one is galena (PbS = lead sulfide) but my sample doesn't look like any pictures of galena I can find on the web. It isn't lustrous and doesn't have the usual flat crystal faces that galena (always?) shows. It is dark (brown/black), and amorphous looking (no obvious crystal structure to my untrained eye). There is some sign of gold-lustre which reminds me of pyrite but that is only on less than 10% of the surface -- not representative of the majority. If it doesn't contain lead, tungsten is another very dense metal (not far from gold in this property, actually) but again, I can't find any photos on the web of tungsten ores that look like my specimen. I remember the booth I bought this in -- picked up three total pieces at about $1 each. (I bought another peacock ore sample from another dealer, too.) I asked the woman who sold me it as Peacock Ore what the chemical composition and/or accepted mineral name was. She asked her son and he shrugged. Bottom line is that I was looking for ores to test with my detector and I sure got one (for cheap!), but unfortunately I don't know what it is. I'm still going to test the response on my Fisher Gold Bug Pro (along with a zillion other rocks) and I should be able to get a good digital ID from the discriminator circuit but I doubt that will help me much in figuring out what it is.

On rereading my own post I realize that was both inaccurate and insensitive. There are quite a few people who stand to gain from higher gold prices, such as metal detector dealers and metal detecting and gold panning tour guides and camps. Even authors can get a big influx of book buyers when increasing gold prices are in the news. I don't know the stats for this site, but in my experience, for every poster there can be several silent members and guests. It seems many posters fit into the recreational miner / supplemental income group as contrasted to those who make a living from mining, but it wouldn't surprise me if pros monitor the site. For them, the difference between $1400/tr.oz and $1000/tr.oz can be the difference between working and collecting unemployment.

Went to the local gem and mineral show a couple weeks ago and picked up some nice ore samples. One of the items going cheap was peacock ore, which Wikipedia says is the common name for the mineral bornite. According to them it has a specific gravity of ~5 and a chemical composition of Cu(5)Fe(1)S(4). My White's TDI PI detects a 74g sample at 10 inches in air. That's one hot rock! I suppose this could be a real payoff for copper if found in quantity. But for gold nugget hunters it's got to be a sting no matter where it jabs. Anyone found this while out hunting?

Am I missing something, or is no one looking at the commodity futures market for gold. No, they aren't right all the time, but most of the traders there have only one or two things to be concerned with, and it's their sole livelihood. For most of us (yeh, not all), we can live with $400/tr-oz gold or $2000/tr-oz gold and not be concerned about what's paying for the next meal. I hope it's going up, too, but there are more things in life than hope. Fun thing to speculate on, anyway.

First off, I'm talking about placer gold. Secondly, I realize this is a simple question with a very complicated answer. But in probability/statistics/percentage terms, I think it's not that crazy. Most, if not all gold is going to end up in the ocean if it's not recovered by one of us. But even once loose from it's origin that could take many 10's of millions of years. In the meantime, gravity is pulling it towards the earth's center. Even dense clay can stop it for a while, but usually it sinks until it reaches bedrock, and even then it can be horizontally displaced unless it falls in a crack/crevice. If you're using a metal detector there is a minimum size that can be detected. "Young gold" (that which has only reached its current location in the last days, months, or even few years) tends to be sub-threshold gold in terms of metal detecting (I think -- please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you're going to find placer gold with a metal detector it most likely has been at or near its current location for a long time, meaning on the order of tens or hundreds of thousand of years at a minimum. (Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm talking in general.) So, to cut to the chase, if I'm using a metal detector to find placer gold and I'm not getting to bedrock, am I just spinning my wheels? Postscript: I'm no expert on this. Maybe my assumptions and conclusions are completely bogus. If so, I welcome/encourage you to say so. I'm trying to learn, not protect my ego.

I'm curious as to why you state this in past tense "...could have made a real impact..." Do you think the opportunity is gone? AFAIK the White's TDI/SL is easily the lightest dry land PI detector on the market today, even though it's been around several years. It seems to me that there is still a place for a lightweight, affordable PI detector with greater sensitivity than the TDI's, and from what you indicate the ATX has the electronics to be just that if it could go on a diet and get rid of the military tank style structure.

Please keep us informed as to the performance of that coil, Rick. I still don't get it. Glad Steve responded but his reply seemed matter-of-fact. I guess one must give up something to get this quiet (ignoring hot rock) performance, and the obvious concession is insensitivity to small gold. But I don't like assuming so I hope someone with 'data' can go into this deeper. That thread you posted seems pretty lean, unless I didn't read it correctly. There are used Omegas and Gammas on Ebay periodically (including now) for reasonable and even better discounts to new prices. I bought a Gamma this past December for $200 and gave it away as a Christmas present. Maybe I should try to get it back!

These archive records provide a lot of value to historians of all kinds, including metal detectorists and gold seekers. Although I'm far from an expert on vehicle design I have to take exception to this poster's date of 1931. I don't think there were any cars in existence that early that look like those in this video. Off at least 5 years and maybe as much as 10. She was trying to tie this video to a bridge opening which is a good attempt, but it takes more than that to tie down a date. The newest thing you can find provides a lower limit on age. I.e. if you find a 1951 Wheatie you can say for sure it wasn't dropped before 1951, but the upper limit is impossible to determine with certainty. Maybe someone stole grannie's coin collection yesterday and this slipped out of the grasp in his attempt to escape undetected. Sure wish I was out there with you and could find the spot of this town and swing my detector on that baseball diamond! If not paved over it should still hold a horde of prewar keepers. Oh, to dream but much better to do....

Ok, am I the only (other) person surprised that the Teknetics Omega (IB unit operating at 7.8 kHz) with its stock elliptical concentric ignores hot rocks? Which is it, the frequency, the coil type, or both? 'Cause my (cousin) 19 kHz Fisher Gold Bug Pro with both 5 inch round DD and 5in x 10in elliptical DD loves to sing when it sees those babies (Arizona and Colorado -- 2 for 2).

You mean Carl Moreland of Geotech works for First Texas? If so I'd say they must be serious about getting into the PI world.

Just back from Colorado and have enough experience with the deteknix W3 Lite model to relate my impressions. Keep in mind I'm just a buyer/user with limited (compared to many of you) experience. Since getting home I noticed they've added two new models to their line: https://www.deteknix.com/product-category/wire-free/ They now offer large, what appear to be over-ear headphones (designated 'Pro' in their listing) to the on-ear (now designated 'Lite') models that have been available for several months. Just to summarize, the six models are W6 Pro (6 mm plug with large headphones) WA Pro (Garrett waterproof connector w/large hp's), W3 Lite (3 mm plug, small hp's) W6 lite (same as previous except 6 mm plug) WA lite (same as previous except Garrett connector) and WR lite (3 mm male for transmitter connection, 6 mm female for receiver to headphone connection). I have the W3 Lite model for which I paid a bit under $90. My model actually came with a 1/4 in (6 mm) male to 1/8 in (3 mm) female adapter/connector. I'm going to break this review into two parts since that seems to be appropriate given the two approaches -- you supply the headphones vs. they supply. 1) General usage: Obviously these are wireless headphones and as such represent that technology/ergonomics to the user. This is why I got them (hate dragging my detector around when it is tethered to my head!). They certainly accomplish that goal. I've been as far away as 10 meters (> 30 ft) from my detector without loss of signal. The transmitter (about the size of two matchboxes oriented end-to-end) is connected to your detector by (default) a custom rubber band which is actually an O-ring. This is OK, but "in the wilds" where you're bumping into rocks, trees, etc. it can come loose. I recommend velcro attachment -- an 'aftermarket' mod which looks pretty easy based on a YouTube video I've seen. (Quite a few YouTube video reviews of these, BTW.) I'll be making this mod with mine soon. As far as lost connections, my experience over an integrated 15+ hours of use is that it isn't a problem. I noticed what appeared to be a skip in T/R maybe four times, all within about 2 hours, and each lasting less than 1 sec. It is possible my plugs (I was using a 1/4 male to 1/8 male adapter which came with my unit so total of 2 connections) weren't completely inserted during that session. Even if this were to be systematic issue (which I doubt), I can't see how it could be an issue given its infrequency. BTW, I mostly use mine in all metal mode with a constant audio sound above threshold. But when I did run my detector in silent discriminate mode they never shut down (power saving?) as I've read that some other brands of headphones have done. Battery life: The longest time I used these without recharging was ~6 1/2 hours and they didn't run out of juice, so I don't know the limit. Each component has an LED which shines when the unit is on. If I'm taking a long break (e.g. lunch) I turn both off to save the batteries. It took about two hours to recharge after that session from my laptop computer -- that was the headphone/receiver recharge time. The transmitter recharged in less than 1/2 hour. Regarding recharging, the unit comes with two DIFFERENT cables. Both have the 'standard' USB (12 mm X 4.5 mm) connectors at one end for plugging into your computer or automobile console (for newer model vehicles) but different micro-USB connectors for the transmitter and headphone (receiver within) connections. The purchased package does not include an AC wall socket to microUSB assembly like you typically get with cellphones, but I'm sure you can find/buy these. The two microUSB standards here are common as I have cellphones (current and past) which use these connectors. 2) Choice of headphones: As mentioned, I have the 'Lite' on-ear version which I'll review below. However, if you have a set of headphones (or more :) which you really like then I would suggest the WR model where you can put the receiver on your person and have the chord attaching there. You are still detached from your detector. And I have no idea how the new 'Pro' headphone models from deteknix perform. (From their website it looks like the retail cost net difference between Lite and Pro is $60.) Hopefully there will soon be or already are reviews online somewhere of these. 3) 'Lite' on-ear headphone performance: Basically these look like not-so-expensive music audio headphones you might see teenagers (or old farts, for that matter) wearing walking down the street. They even have what appear to be pause/play and fast-forward/rewind buttons on them which, AFAIK, have no use when used with a metal detector. The on/off and volume controls on the headphones do work with MD's. These are almost completely plastic (there is a steel band running through the overhead structure) which probably makes them susceptible to breakage for hard-core detectorists, especially in hot desert environments. They are small enough to fit under my full rim flyfishing hat. However, I tried putting them over a baseball cap and then I wished the extension arms would have gone out a bit more. (I don't think I have an unusually large head, well, not literally but maybe figuratively... :). Regarding sound quality, I found them quite usable/agreeable. I never got into extremely noisy environments (e.g. heavy auto traffic or raging/rushing water) but they did fine in the wind. Again I expect these perform similar to typical on-ear headpones. As far as comfort goes, I didn't notice them over the four hours of my longest non-stop session, so for me, no problems there. Overall I'm pleased with my purchase. I realize there are other options, but AFAI can tell those are more expensive (in some cases much more expensive), and for my demands/requirements these fit-the-bill at an affordable price.

Combining the two posts above, the F19 (as you will find out from reading Steve's reviews) and the Gold Bug Pro are almost the same detector, and El Dorado's used one for sale has all three stock coils. (Steve's main reason for his slight pref. of the F19 over the BGPro is that it comes with the 5x10 coil -- and that is one that El Dorado is including in his sale.) I think the TDI/SL is about $1200 new on eBay and that comes with the 12 inch dual field coil. There are two used ones up for auction there now, neither has a bid yet. One with the 12 inch stock coil (presumably the dual field, not the mono) requires an opening bid of $700. That auction ends in Tues at 10:37 PM EDT. The other with 5 days left and a required opening of $800 comes with a White's 7 in. round plus the Miner John 5x10 which is the favorite coil of some TDI users. This second auction lot also includes the longer life aftermarket lithium battery.

Thanks for all the well thought out responses. I decided to go ahead and get a NEL Attack coil for my Fisher GB Pro (also works for the Teknetics Frat Brothers), used from Ebay. I'm still getting acquainted with the White's TDI/SPP detector so will wait there, although I do have a 9X14 Garrett Infinium Mono in the shop, trying to mod it to work with the TDI. I'll report if I accomplish that task, but don't hold your breath as it isn't on the top of my detecting hobby to-do list at the moment, and it's far from my skill set level of expertise (but it's still fun trying!).

I doubt I'm the first to wonder about this or even to start a thread here on the subject. But there is a lot of fuzziness regarding this issue and I'm considering purchasing yet another coil so I'd like to get some expert opinions (yes, that means you, detectorprospector reader :). You can break searchcoil size into any categories you see fit, so I'll start with mine. First off, coils don't need to be circular or axially symmetric and many are far from it. But to simplify let's use the larger of the two axes as the nominal size. I divide into three categories: small = {coils whose larger dimension is less than 7 inches ~ 180 mm}, medium = {coils with larger dimension between 7 inches and 12 inches ~ 300 mm}, and large which are all coils with larger dimension greater than 12 inches. Selfishly I'm going to ignore the first two categories since I have several of these for my two detectors. My question comes down to: "Should I get a big coil?" Certainly you'd like to know my detecting requirements so here they are. In order of priorities: 1) nugget hunting (high), 2) coin hunting (moderately high), 3) ghost towning &/or typical historic site relic hunting (moderate). I leave off many areas that interest other detectorists relish: {beach combing, underwater recovery, battlefield relic hunting, cache hunting, etc.}. Looking online, both at text reviews and reports plus YouTube videos, there seems to be support/evidence/hype? that large coils go deeper to find coins (in particular) at hunted out sites. Being someone who successfully coin hunted 45 years ago with what today wouldn't even qualify as a child's detector (Heathkit T/R with no ground balance and no discrimination) I can add my name to the list who understand that finding old (pre-clad, pre-Lincoln Memorial) is an uncommon experience today. But back to the issue, here are the pluses and minuses I see with large coils. Disadvantages: 1) heavy (although maybe not so ridiculous if you lug around one of the many PI heavyweights), 2) noisy, in terms of more mineralized ground within the coil's zone of influence, potentially picking up more trash signals, and higher sensitivity to RF background interference, 3) loss of sensitivity to small/tiny targets, particularly small gold nuggets but also small jewelry, 4) cost. Contrast that to the advantages: a) bigger sweep swath, b) deeper detection sensitivity. I know it's still difficult to quantify since there are so many variables to weigh. But what is your experience? Do you use the large coils you've bought or have you reverted to the medium and small coils, leaving the large ones in your museum displays?

They make variations of these wireless headphones, all costing around $90 in the US: all have transmitters and receivers. The variations are: 1) 1/8 in. male plug, 2) 1/4 in. male plug, 3) Garrett waterproof (AT Gold and AT Pro) plug. These three models come with compact on-ear headphones. The 4th) model -- the one you mention -- is a 1/4 in. jack transmitter + receiver where the receiver has a 1/4 in. (I think; maybe it's a 1/8 in.) female jack that allows you to plug in your favorite set of headphones. I did read some online reviews which are varied. Most are positive but there was one thread (don't remember the site) which started a shark feeding frenzy on lost signals. I bought the 1/8 inch + on-ear headphones set which comes with a 1/4 in. male to 1/8 in. female adapter. So far they are working fine. I'm headed to Colorado this week for 3-4 days of detecting so I'll know better when I get back and will report here their results. My biggest concern isn't the lost signals, which I suspect have either been fixed or are just the typical online squeeky wheel looking for grease. My concern is that the on-ear headphones don't drown out background noise coming from flowing water, automobile/truck traffic, etc. Again, I'll know more in the next couple weeks.

I've kept quiet for a while now, but not do to lack of activity. For starters I thank all the responders, especially Carl (Geotech), Rick (RickUK), and Roughwater for their technical recommendations. I've moved on from the Garrett BFO coil mod idea and will start a new thread soon (week or so) with details and photos on two paths I've chosen, in short physically modding the White's 150 (mm) closed circular disc mono and electronically modding a recently acquired Garrett Infinium 10x14 mono. I'm hoping I haven't bored everyone so much that they stop responding. My view of this forum is that it is wide open to a variety of gold recovery and/or metal detecting interests, and anything which potentially leads to the improvement/enhancement/enjoyment of at least one reader without insulting too many isn't a waste.

Are you familiar with the Deteknix products along these lines? Here is one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Deteknix-Wire-Free-Wireless-Adapter-for-Metal-Detector-Headphones-1603-104-/272136038830?hash=item3f5c9269ae:g:Um0AAOSwKtVWw1zU This package allows you to plug in your favorite (corded) headphones to the receiver unit you can put in your pocket. They also have three versions which come with their on-ear (not over-ear) headphones. The differences between the three is the connector (1/4 inch, 1/8 inch, or Garrett waterproof). I bought a set (1/8 inch male angled connector with on-ear headphones, 1/4 inch male to 1/8 inch female adapter included) and so far, so good. My concern is that their on-ear headphones might not do so great with noisy background, such as near a street or highway or near rushing water. But I haven't had a chance to try them out under those conditions so it's just a 'concern' right now. They work great in my back yard.

I like to read a lot on the metal detecting subject: internet, magazines, and books of which I have a decent collection. As you say, Tortuga, many books are pretty basic and say the same things. They are for beginners (even some with, IMO, misleading titles that imply they aren't). However, Chris's book is clearly not (just) for beginners. It is the textbook for the geology of gold. For someone who does not have an education in geology it is a deep read. In fact, make that plural because this is one of those manuals that can't be absorbed in one reading -- some sections (for me, anyway) require more like 3 or 4 coverings to really get full value. I'm in my 2nd (and some cases 3rd) time through the book right now. Chris does the same detailed writing in the ICMJ where he is (at least in the issues I've read) the #1 contributor. BTW, anyone who wants good reading material on metals geology, prospecting, and mining with emphasis on gold should definitely subscribe to this journal. I get mildly annoyed when titles of books use words like 'bible', 'encyclopedia', 'manual of', when they really should state 'introduction to...' or 'elementary basics of...' or 'beginner's guide to...'. IMO, Chris's book (whose title uses none of the above words) is certainly qualified to wear one of the stronger words/phrases. It's far more than an introduction, at least from what I've seen of its competition.

Could you give an estimate of how many hours you spent digging last week, and how many total coins you dug? I'd like to be able to estimate how rare such an occurrence is. The number of coins dug is the more important one. The word 'impressive' doesn't begin to do this justice. If those are nearly independent events (that is, we're not talking about someone stealing a coin collection and then dumping it in the local park) this is approaching astronomical. I recall an article in Coin World newspaper back in the the 60's where an estimate was given of the number of hours searching through bank rolls it would take to find various scarce and rare Lincoln Cents. Wish I could find that article.

It takes a while on this site to figure out who is who and where each resides. With that moniker and kangaroo image, for the longest time I figured you were from Australia and from your posts I surmised possibly California. Is it really United Kingdom? Finding a US Silver dollar in the home county is a lifetime achievement even for a very accomplished coin hunter. Obviously the reason isn't the signal it gives, and it isn't so much the age (although, except for some special collector non-circulating editions, the last business strike occurred in 1935). The biggest reason is that they didn't circulate. I know there are quite a few Nevadans who read and post on this site. The history of the US silver dollar is intimately tied to Nevada. If you ever get bored at bedtime, get one of Q. David Bowers's books that cover the U.S. silver dollar. Basically the vast majority of U.S. silver dollar minting was driven by the Comstock Lode discovery and silver recovery thanks to their aggressive U.S. Senator. The problem was that the impetus was supply-side driven. That is, the laws passed to mint a large number of these (supply) wasn't met by an equivalent desire (demand) for them to be minted. They were physically heavy, they represented quite a significant investment (a dollar was a lot of money in the late 1800's and early 1900's), and they had some competition from paper money. As a result most went into bank vaults, especially U.S. Treasury and U.S. Federal Reserve vaults, unlikely to ever see the light of day. Not surprisingly (and likely known to many of you Westerners) the primary geographical area of circulation for U.S. Silver Dollars was the U.S. West. Even then they didn't trust banks (to keep their valuables) nor the government (i.e. those worthless paper promissory notes)! There were significant meltings of these coins in the early 20th Century. But many survived in mint condition in these underground storage havens. One of the great coin collecting coups of all time occurred in the 1960's and 1970's when the mint released a lot of these hidden treasures (for, at the time, premium prices). That was both a boon (to the wanting collectors) and bust (to those who held rare editions, only rare because of the few that were ever circulated). But as far as silver dollars in the ground? Yes, there are some cache/hoards still out there. But just think about it -- if you dropped a silver dollar, how likely were you to notice when it happened? Given its size, how likely that someone else didn't find it sitting on top of the ground? And when you realized you just lost something on the order of or greater than a day's wage, wouldn't you retrace your steps multiple times to try and recover it? None if this could occur if you didn't have the means to possess one of these beauties in the first place. No, U.S. silver dollars aren't nearly as rare as U.S. gold coins. Find one of those and you should be nominated for the metal detecting Hall of Fame. But silver dollars are very rare finds and if you didn't celebrate when you found that one, please invite me to the party when you do.

Nice review -- very professionally done. I will point out a couple minor inaccuracies. Garrett pans have had mounting holes in the edges for nearly 40 years. I still have one of their original "Gravity Trap" versions. I can't say that every pan they've ever produced has a hole but recently I bought their Super Sluice and it has one. Also the Super Sluice has the angular transition from flat bottom to conical side that you compliment the new Minelab for having. I didn't catch you mentioning the cost but I recall from an earlier thread it was supposed to be competitively priced.

I appreciate people posting still pics and videos, as on YouTube, of detecting. The videos there I like are the ones that show the actual detecting. Then the viewers can experience important things such as the sound, the ID on the meter, and not least I'd like to know "what were the settings on the detector?" How deep did the object turn out to be? Was its orientation such that it gave an unexpected signal for the type object it was? The videos that skip all the detecting (and digging) and simply show the find might as well just be photo albums of still pics.