GB_Amateur

Between the two posts you've detailed three reasons: learning time, cost, and storage. In my case #1 drove me to the Manticore over the Deus 2. But, always trying to be open-minded, I'm not sure I made the right choice. Still, I learned from the Equinox that, for me, it takes a long time to really get familiar with a new (complicated) detector. I haven't seen any world beater performance with the Manticore yet, but I don't expect that. Every other time I take it out it gets a bit more comfortable (mentally, that is). I expect that to continue.

If possible, be somewhere that has birds. They go crazy when the sun sets at a time they know isn't normal. Regarding viewing the partial (penumbral), a simple pin-hole projection shows plenty, as do the leaves of deciduous trees which act as multiple pinholes. If you're in totality you can look directly at it (and should -- come on it's once in a lifetime!) because the dangerous (permanently damaging to the eyes) UV radiation is blocked out by the moon. But I emphasize only during the totality (umbral) phase. Lots of people think (unfortunately) that there is something special about an eclipse which adds dangerous radiation. Our eyes have built in warnings when looking at a bright sun. That keeps us from doing it. As the sun becomes (partially) obscured the intensity drops and our eye defense mechanism is less effective. Then there is the incentive to look even if there's a bit of discomfort. Bottom line is that the propensity for damage is the result of human nature, not mother nature. The path of totality crosses through the heart of Indiana so I don't even need to leave home to see it. But I intend to have a mobility plan as Spring isn't great for clear skies around here.... Is no one planning combining some metal detecting along with their eclipse viewing? Lots of good detecting in the USA Southwest....

Unfortunately holes are the death arrow for coins, even rare ones. If it didn't have that you could sell on Ebay (for example) for a satisfactory price. Someone wants that to help 'fill out' his/her collection. The obverse probably grades Fair-2 or maybe a notch higher. The reverse gets a Poor-1 but as mentioned by multiple people already, a clear, readable date makes it meaningful. I hear lots of people say "I don't care what it's worth -- I'll never sell it." To me that sounds like a bit of sour grapes. I have lots of coins I'll never sell but I still prefer them to have as much value as possible. I have other collectibles that are either unique or likely one of a handful in existence. Owning something extremely rare (valuable or not) brings me pleasure. It just 'feels' better to me. But to each his own. The nice thing about being a coin collector and metal detectorist is that your collection comes from hard work and luck -- your own. Finding the first of a series, denomination, type is an accomplishment in itself. If it's a scarce or rare item, that's icing on the cake, but even the unfrosted cake tastes pretty damn good!

Ok, you woke me up. The way your year has been going I'm surprised it's not an 1802. (Then you would have awakened me from a deep sleep, just from the ruckus 600 miles distant.) Half dimes are tougher to find than dimes given their smaller size, as most know. Then there's the cutoff date (last minted 1873). My guess is that yours was extremely worn already when the hole was put into it. Either way, great the date survived and exciting to find a rarity, even in this condition. You're setting bar high for the next 10 months!

I didn't see anything like that. Maybe they were just building the page when you visited or did you just grab this? If the latter is the case maybe it's a browser issue.... Bill Southern is known far-and-wide in the detecting and gold recovery community. Many here can vouch for him. Of course that doesn't guarantee his website is 100% up-to-date, inventory-wise.

So you bought some of these, huh. We know what 'treasure' you were after....

Maybe "all of the above" and then some. We like to think of metal detectors as simple devices (well, some of us do...) but the hobby versions were made to find metals in the ground first and foremost. We talk about 'conductivity' but although related to its scientific meaning, large(r) objects of poor innate conductivity can read quite high VDI's and vice versa for tiny, highly conductive metals (e.g. silver micro-jewelry). It's a bonus that we can deduce properties using these otherwise utilitarian devices. There's a lot of info in those signals as the most experienced detectorists learned with many hours of familiarity. There's probably way more subtle info than anyone will ever have the time (or interest) to figure out.

Quite a diverse collection of keeper finds! The 1857-S quarter is a scarce date+mintmark (only 82,000 minted). The reverse condition looks quite nice; obverse a bit rough. Definitely some value in that, regardless.

For those not used to non-metric units, 0.6 grain = 0.04 gram. Impressive performance IMO.

Is that Simon back when he had a real job??

Great work! Thanks for sharing. Now we have examples of non-dug coins which are out-of-spec. Excellent measurements.

In question, sure. But the fact is, common soil contains chemicals that attack much of our coinage. Saltwater is particularly hard on 90% silver coins as you and many others here have shown. That tends not to be the case with most inland soils. Coins whose composition is dominated by copper is a different story, as you likely know. The Warnick composition is so much different than any modern coin that I'm familiar with because of the 9% manganese. I've said it before but I'll quantify. Of the 94 elements found in/on the earth which are 'natural' (I.e. not human synthesized), 69 are considered metals with the remainder either semiconductors (silicon being the poster child) or non-conductors (all the gases plus some solids like sulfur and the odd-ball liquid -- at room temperature -- bromine). Of those 69 metals only one (I emphasize one) has a worse conductivity in pure form than manganese. It happens to be plutonium (element 94 so coincidentally the highest atomic number of the naturally occurring terrestrial elements). I recall they had better uses for that substance during the war than alloys for coins!

Well, I have them but they're in a bank safety deposit box.... (I took them out for the study but then returned them.) I know I have all dates+MM's for the Warnicks but whether they were all represented in that 4 roll set used in the study, IDK. Because I tend to discriminate by VDI when searching parks and schools that weren't frequented outside the last 100 or so years, my data from recovered-from-ground coins are not meaningful. I would expect every one I've found to have a common USA nickel ID else I likely would have skipped over it. But, yes the ones I've recovered have all been ~12-13 on the Equinox. However, as just indicated, selection bias renders that not meaningful for this discussion.

The key disctinction for previous studies was whether the coin came from the ground (I.e. was found with a detector) or simply came from loose change or bank rolls. I specifically chose the latter (160+) to try and distinguish between in-ground vs. not. What's the history of the six you measured? Either way, thanks for the data. We can never have enough (reliable) data.

Although it's popular to say this happened at the mint, that claim ignores the fact that I measured over 160 Warnicks that had never been in the ground. Not a single one read higher than 13-14 (alternating) on the Equinox 800. So if the alloy is off the intended 9% manganese, 35% silver, 56% copper, the smoking gun points to changes from environmental action. The fact that SoHN's recent samples in some cases read considerably higher than standard composition nickels and in other cases, measurably lower could mean there are multiple things going on, not just one simple explanation. Mother Nature likes to do that sometimes to keep us from getting a big head, thinking we've got her figured out.

Here's the post that m/l started the discussion. See also the posts that follow it:

Care to elaborate? I just went there and snooped around. I didn't notice anything I would call 'incomplete'. (I could easily have missed it, though.)

The Geotech Forum members here can probably answer that. I did just cut into a Garrett Infinium coil I have laying around and was surprised its shielding wasn't particularly robust -- just a thin foil layer. I'm more used to Gigahertz signals which require closely woven braid. Maybe the kHz region is much more forgiving...?

I don't think oxides are conductive. A big component of metal detector response to a specific target is skin depth. Basically how deep the electromagnetic field penetrates. Pretty sure this is why our modern USA clad coinage reads so high -- because the Ni-Cu layer has a (relatively speaking) high skin depth and is in a sense transparent to the dynamic EM fields. The Warnick was a brilliant solution for the metallurgical engineers who designed it. The dominant coin in coin-operated machines in the early 40's here in our country was the 'nickel'. Apparently the machines had a way of detecting slugs and it was something akin to our modern detector. (There may also have been ways of detecting the weight.) When word came out that the nickel's comp was being changed for the war there was an outcry from the coin op industry asking that the replacement match not only the weight but also the EM properties. Amazingly they were able (in a short time) to do that by adding manganese -- possibly the lowest conductor of all non-radioactive metallic elements -- chosen to moderate the higher conducting properties of the silver and copper. My hypothesis has been that if the manganese can somehow be removed (chemically) while the coin is in the environment then the conductivity will increase to reflect the remaining copper and silver. Can you use an abrasive (e.g. steel wool) to take off the surface crud from one AFTER you've measured its VDI and see how the VDI changes? That should tell you if you're noticing a surface effect or if it's rather a global change. Sorry to be putting all this work on you. If I were out there near the NE coast I'd help. 😉 P.S. My hypothesis doesn't explain the 20 and 22 ID's of those two coins in your photo above so maybe multiple processes are present. Or maybe my hypothesis is just full of, uh, corrosion....

Wow, thanks for the quick response! Do you realize you've just solved a mystery that has been floating around this site (and other detecting sites) for quite a few years? I'm serious. There have been multiple reports of Warnicks giving considerably higher VDI's than other nickels, even though no one has ever given evidence that Warnicks *not* coming from the ground read anything different than standard 25-75 Ni-Cu. (I measured over 150 in my non-detected collection with the Eqx and all were either 13 or (occasionally) 13-14. The Manticore's USA nickel VDI's peak around 26-27 so your recent two are way above that. (And they are consistent with many of the earlier reports of coins which were found in the ground, but not in saltwater.) The environment has seriously changed the conductivity and selective removal of manganese (9% of the Warnick and a very low conductor) is pretty much now the solid explanation.

Author Report Posted yesterday at 03:34 PM If I've been following correctly, isn't this the first time in a while you've been in single digits with your silver coin count? Even for you that was a hell of a run! BTW, if you think of it would you run one of those green Warnicks over the Manticore and report the digital TID?

Someone here (e.g. @F350Platinum ) will likely figure it out. I did a quick google images search under WWI dog tags but I don't think it's that. Is there some printing around the hole, and if so can you decipher it?

I'm currently running with the most recent software (aka 'update'). I did some cross checking in my test garden, swapping between original and recent software update and didn't notice anything. The only thing in the update I'm aware of that even interests me is the Stabilizer feature but I've yet to play around with it enough to determine it matters. (Probably does under the right conditions....) I've run it at values 0 and 4. I tested settings 9 and 10 in the garden and those seriously cost depth for coins in my ground. The 'stabilizer filter' with my tone settings sounds absolutely horrible. It's going to take some strong convincing before I ever turn it on again. FWIW I typically operate in either All Terrain General or (preferably) All Terrain High Conductors. I run sensitivity 17 and recovery speed 4. Those work well in my local sites (and test garden).

Never heard that term but absolutely understand it -- what high quality for such a find! I know you explained a couple items in the top photo but do you mind covering the remainder? I'm not very familiar with coins from your area so can't tell just by looking at the photo. Everything you show (except the bottom photo), coins or otherwise, has me salivating.

I second that sentiment. Even Monte, who lived and detected in silver country for ~6 decades, never found one. Only about 11/4 million were ever minted with any date/mintmark.