GB_Amateur

All by itself -- impressive! 😏 Care to give us more details? Appears to have some stretch marks (err, stress lines), before and after. The reverse looks much nicer than the obverse so I assume the reverse was facing down for, oh, 1 1/2 centuries. Very nice find, regardless. I'm envious. As happens a lot, it seems, the coin was high grade (XF?) when dropped but the (fertilized?) soil hasn't been kind over all those decades. About how deep was it?

https://www.detectorprospector.com/tags/qed/

Would you mind posting the full name (and author, if appropriate) of that book/pamphlet titled "GPS Coordinates of Historic..."?

I'll be blunt (not picking on you, Simon): if she doesn't know how to use a metal detector, how do we know she's even plugged into Garrett headquarters enough to be able to (confidently!) predict they will have a new detector available in 2024? I've only been around this game (in the internet age, anyway) for 7 1/2 years now, but I'm running out of fingers counting all the predictions of new detectors "arriving this year" that haven't materialized. But "hope springs eternal...."

Well said, Jeff, and thanks for your reply. As time goes on and you get more familiar with both detectors, hopefully you will be able to report on more side-by-side comparisons of known (e.g. test garden) and unknown ("in the wild") targets. It's quite likely (IMO) that any difference will show up in difficult conditions -- difficult mineralization or difficult trash environments. I guess this last sentence is a summary of all the top-of-the-line IB/VLF detectors over the past 15-20 (or maybe longer) years: in less demanding conditions they all work well but when the going gets tough, certain models out-perform others.

How does the database get populated and kept up-to-date?

This is not the comparison sub-forum, I realize, but the first statement caught my interest. An inch is a lot. For many posters I would just blow off such a comment, but not you. Could you expound a bit on your experiences that led to this conclusion? Also, the second quote doesn't appear to be as extreme/significant in its comparison. Am I missing something?

Nice solution! Title says 'M8'. Photos are for M11. But if you are asking about a similar protection system for the M8, I agree with others that your pictured solution appears to be quite stout, and sufficiently so, IMO. If you wanted to go a bit further, cover the foam block with a similiarly/appropriately sized box. Cardboard would be an easy method. Wood or (if you really want to go the extra mile) aluminum would likely protect even against airline baggage-handling gorillas.

Good point, but how do you find out? The rightmost ring in my 'junk' photo was a particular surprise because of how attractive it is. My eye said it would contain precious metal (more than just the gold plating). I haven't tossed it (or sold at a yard sale) so it still could work out that I've misevaluated it.

To be more specific, I could click on the link icon but that would just result in a spinning arrow-ring. The same thing occurred when I tried to use the'@' symbol to find and post a site member's name. It wouldn't narrow down the search as I type (the normal result) but just give me the spinning arrow. I can't say that these occurrences are due to a problem with the software, though. I just don't remember experiencing such in the many times I've used these features in the past.

I also just made a very long post in the Jewelry sub-forum. Fortunately it went through but I was unable to use the link icon during creation. So I think some of the gremlins are again present.

Although these pieces weren't found with a detector, I think what I relate here is relevant to this site. Background: This past summer my wife was aiding a friend who was downsizing as the result of a divorce. She had several jewelry rings that had been accumulated over the years but didn't remember their history. Likely some were family hand-me-downs and others were gifts or even purchases she had made herself. Her feeling was that they were of little value but my wife asked me about them and I said I would dig deeper. Thus initiated this rather detailed study. I probably spent upwards of 25-30 hours, maybe more, with this investigation, but it was certainly a learning experience and I enjoy those (if I choose them myself 😀). Items: I initially broke the ~25 rings into two categories -- those that were (by eye) clearly junk and those that might have precious metal content. I don't have a photo of the first group of half-a-dozen or so. Those were in fact put in a yard sale for ~25 cents each. The second group was given the royal investigation treatment as follows: 1) search for maker and purity marks, 2) measure weight and (with Archimedes method) specific gravity [initially with stones included but later after their removal in cases I was able to do that], 3) find their air-test VDI's with the Minelab Equinox 800, and 4) perform an acid test on those that were still considered to be gold after steps 1-3. Here are photos starting with the gold candidates: Silver rings (all marked either 925 or 900): Junk rings (as concluded from multiple tests, not from simple inspection): These photos were taken shortly before shipment to the refiner so in most cases you'll see that the stones have been removed. Investigation & Preparation: Initially I did the specific gravity determination with stones in place and then tried to estimate (subtracting with guesses to volume and weight of stones) the metal-only specific gravity. In most cases I was later able to remove the stones and then repeat the S.G. measurements which were more appropriate/accurate. I used three methods of removing the stones: 1) when held in place simply by 'prongs' (is that what jewelers call them?) a needle nose pliers was good enough to bend the prongs until the stones fell out. 2) In many instances the back side of the ring had a small hole accessing the stone so I used a somewhat sharp punch (only as sharp as required) to knock them out. 3) In a couple silver ring cases the stones were glued in place. For those I used Lacquer Thinner (a mixture of several not-so-healthy petroleum derivative chemicals including acetone, methyl-ethyl ketone, xylene, toluene, methanol,...) -- easily purchased at hardware stores -- to dissolve the adhesive. Note that Lacquer thinner will dissolve most plastics and many wood finishes so care should be taken. Fortunately for me this worked quite nicely in this instance and the stones just fell out. Shortly I will show a spreadsheet with all the data. For the purposes of the shipping manifest, though, I defaulted to the stamped purities even though I was in some cases dubious that they were 100% accurate based upon the specific gravity measurements. I'm pretty sure the refiner has better methods than I to determine purity and will conclude pricing based upon their findings. No deception was intended. (I did not include S.G., acid test, or VDI data in the manifest, BTW. I highly doubt they would use my values or trust them if it's even something they would use in their determination methods, and if so they surely would make their own measurements independently.) Here are the shipment contents: Basically each gold ring was it its own bag. Silver rings were in two bags sorted by purity (92.5% vs. 90%). Each bag included an index card with metal type (gold or silver), marked purity, and weight. A separate summary itemized listing is shown at bottom. (Thanks go to Jeff McClendon for advising me on steps to take in preparing the shipment.) I sent them via USPS Priority Mail, insured, to Midwest Refineries , also suggested by Jeff. (Sorry but as I write this the link icon isn't working. You can easily find their website by a Google Search.) The total shipment cost (postage + insurance) was $25. I think I insured for $600 -- can't remember. Surprisingly and gratefully, I shipped on a Friday and had a check in hand the following Thursday! Here is a screenshot of a spreadsheet with measurement/identification details: Hopefully you can read it. There are three specific gravity columns -- initial measurements with stones still present, my estimate correcting for stones, and the final measurement after stones were removed. As you can see, based upon the gold and silver spot prices on the day of shipment (upper right) and assuming marked purities (one exception being the tiny 18k ring) and no refining/recovery/processing costs I concluded the (unrealistic) total precious metal content value of $901.94. Also shown is the returned check amount of $747.00. I was pleased and my wife's friend (recall she thought all were junk) was overjoyed. Take note of the Equinox VDI values. All silver and junk rings (recall these latter were not shipped) have high VDI's (in the case of silver, being up in the neighborhood of USA silver dimes, quarters, even halves) while the gold rings are at highest around USA nickels and going down to near iron (1 being the lowest non-ferrous reading on the Equinox). The rings gave different readings depending upon orientation and I just listed the highest value I got from the three orientation measurements. Another thing you may noticed in the 'comments' column are the details of the acid testing. IMO this isn't a clear indicator as hopefully you can see. In some cases there was no dissolution (meaning the purity was as high or higher than indicated on the acid bottle), in some cases the metal streak didn't appear to dissolve until I gently absorbed the liquid with a paper towel, in some cases the metal dissolved in ~10 seconds, in some cases 1 minute, in some cases it neither dissolved nor would it wipe/off or absorb. In particular, although I've found specific gravity vs. purity tables on the internet, I suspect there are more devils in the details than these tables imply, particularly for white gold. The actual alloy contents are likely the reason. Here is a photo of the removed stones: The lower tray are the ones that either gave good readings on a gem tester or otherwise appeared to be of actual quality. The upper are, from my conclusion, glass or low grade minerals. BTW, for one of the rings I punched out ~50 tiny stones! That large orange item might be authentic amber, IDK. It exhibits layering which I wouldn't expect from a fake, but what do I know? The two pearls passed the 'tooth test' (not sure if that is reliable) and the green stones may be jade. They came from the 18k yellow gold ring. Summary: This is my first (maybe last?) attempt at selling jewelry. I certainly went to more effort than is required, but again, I wanted to take advantage of this learning experience. As to whether the relative return (~83%) is representative of such sales, many of you are a better judge than I, but I felt it was quite reasonable.

Not 16 hours later. That price is more in line with a high quality set of traditional MD headphones. Sure, we all want to pay as little as possible but I find this price more palatable. Some (many?) of us have cabinets full of headphones and already have a favorite pair. So getting a module which makes those compatible with a detector choice makes sense, IMO. Here's a link I used to find the page: https://www.fortbedfordmetaldetectors.com/Minelab-WM-09-Wireless-Audio-Monitor ?keyword=WM 09

Someone here likely knows what that is. I think you should alter your post title to get more eyes on the post. Also, it's really more relevant to native/natural gold detectorists than coin and relic hunters. As such the general forum is more likely to get noticed by those people.

Did ML publish a latency spec for their proprietary Bluetooth wireless on the Manticore? If so, do you mind posting it here or tell me where I can find it? I looked for it early on (a year ago) but couldn't find it then, and haven't been paying much attention since I got the Manticore+ML105s (which seem quite fast).

I've been wondering about this device lately so thanks for the links, Andrew and Chase. As I see it, the advantage of the WM09 (and the roll-your-own option) is fewer items and thus connections that can get flaky. But, yes, $60 vs. $114 vs. >$200 is worth considering, also, for many of us. Unlike the ML80's that came with the Equinox 800, I find the sound on the ML105's provided with the Manticore to be quite decent. But they don't block out the background noise worth a lick. I guess I should clarify this last point. If you want to hear everything around you (like people/animals approaching) then that's a different requirement than I have. I often detect near traffic and that can be extremely tiring/distracting. There are headphones (like the SunRay Pro Golds) that are much better at blocking out that kind of noise.

My apology if this has already been posted. A WWII practice munition was found on a Santa Cruz beach: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/01/02/world-war-ii-practice-bomb-california-beach/72089969007/ The article claims it was "washed up". Does that make sense? Specifically where was it before the big winds arrived recently?

I blame the mint (and Congress) for the Zincolns but the public for the lack of large denomination coins. Growing up in the 60's and even into the 70's, half dollars were commonly received in change. We've had small format $1 coins (off and on) since 1979 yet the number I've gotten in change I could count on one hand (not hold in one hand, count, as in 1,2,3,4,5). Our fellow countrymen love quarters and paper $1 for the past 40 years. Fortunately we've avoided iron core coins in this country. There's enough iron in our detecting sites already....

Great find, CPT! I think that 10 below the Panda stands for 10 Yuan and for a 1986 date that means it contains 0.1 ozt of gold. If the bezel is gold alloy, then the gold content found goes up some more. Have you put it on a scale yet? Encouraging, understanding spouses are the best kind. 😉

Either I hope I misinterpret what you say, or hope you will reconsider. Although it's true that you've built a community here that is likely the most knowledgeable and helpful regarding metal detecting of any out there and as a result might be able to survive without your posts, the fact is that many of us look forward to you "clearing the air" on anything from the most basic question all the up to the very deep and detailed. Decades ago (1970's and early 80's) there was a TV commercial with the punchline "when E.F. Hutton talks, people listen." At this site, replacing 'E.F. Hutton' with 'Steve Herscbach' is the perfect analogy. Please don't let a few antagonistic encounters spoil the best commodity here.

Do you want specifically a holster with the 'TRX' embroidered on it? I'm pretty sure there are others out there that are the same size and shape, possibly made by the same manufacturer. In fact I think the Garrett Carrot uses the same one.

Early 19th Century USA silver coins don't come easily even East of the Mississippi, let alone West. Your California Gold Rush hypothesis makes a lot of sense, even though there was (AFAIK) a lot of bartering even then, including trading raw gold for day-to-day provisions. All three of your > 1 1/2 Century old finds are in excellent shape given they've been being worked on by weather and soil conditions for so long. Your unknown item looks a lot like a mid-20th century bottle opener although it looks overbuilt for that task, and if the age fits with the other two I highly doubt it since I don't think crown caps came into existence until much later. Certainly appears to be for some kind of task that involved leverage, but what? Probably for an everyday activity in a stable, barn, kitchen, saloon, or part of the buildings trade. Great finds!

That permission is quite the Christmas present that hopefully keeps on giving for a long time. The hexagonal tokens(?) show a variety of patina colors which is likely the result of the varying soil chemistry (e.g. acidity/pH). The mint designers seem to have had a blind spot in the 1910's, with all three of Buffalo/Indian nickel, Standing Liberty quarter, and Walking Liberty half being vulnerable to rather quick loss of date due to the dates not being recessed. For the SLQ there was a change made in 1925 to alleviate that problem but that was only partially successful. Thus finding specimens with even partial (readable) dates is tough throughout the 15 years of production, let alone full dates. As you likely know your 'Type 1' was only minted for 1916 and the first part of 1917. The change resulted from complaints due to the 'topless' depiction of lady liberty. Other changes were included, such as the number of stars on the shield and the easily recognized three stars added under the Eagle. Even the latter difference shows up on the well worn (dateless) coins. If yours had the 1916 date we'd be extremely excited. As it stands the combination of discoloration and scratches in addition to the relatively high mintage figure (only 11 of the 37 dates+mintmarks+type listed in the Redbook have higher mintages) likely renders yours a display piece, but still something to be appreciated. As Doc Bach points out, SLQ's seem to be particularly elusive to metal detectorists among small denomination silver 20th Century USA coins. I myself have yet to find one, even a dateless version.

The lower photo (your earlier find) does appear to be the more common Large Motto. I can't see enough detail on your recent find to distinguish. I'm assuming you looked at the PCGS page which shows both varieties in high resolution.

The unpopular 2 Cent piece was only minted for 10 years, that last one 1873 being only 600 proofs, not for circulation but rather for collectors. 43.5% were dated 1864 and 29.9% dated 1865. That leaves just 26.6% to be minted in the final 8 years. I don't recall anyone here showing one that wasn't dated either '64 or '65. Also pretty sure all the '64s that have been shown were the more common Large Motto. Except for the two double die varieties (in 1867 and 1872) and the 1873 proofs, the Small Motto 1864 is easily the most valuable of the series. (Hope you got one of those, F350. 😁)