Search the Community

Hello to all, I am currently using a goldbug 2. On the creek in the Yuba River drainage where I am using it, there is a lot of exposed bedrock, or alternating gravel and bedrock. I am finding that the bedrock ground balances far different from the gravels. This is a bit of a problem for me, since when I ground balance to the bedrock, any of the gravel sounds off loudly. When I ground balance to the gravels, then pass the coil over bedrock, the detector goes null, or quiet. Seems this contrast is giving me a lot of false positive reads. I have found a fair amount of flakes and small pickers, but feel that I may be missing good targets, since the bedrock and gravels ground balance so so differently. Any suggestions on how to deal with this would be much appreciated. Jeffree

Is it me or does it seem like the cable for the GB2 is about twice as long as it needs to be? I guess I understand that you are supposed to be able to mount the control box to yourself. Has anyone shortened theirs? Would this cause any issues with the detector?

Picked up my GM1000 from Gerry on Friday, then after doing chores up at the cabin got it out yesterday and today. Used the larger coil for scouting out a new spot and after a couple hours of no decent targets yesterday, went over the same area with my GB2. Still nothing, so at least I didn't miss anything in that area, but I wasn't real comfortable with the Monster yet. So today, after yacking with VA Nurse Paul last night and Scott T today...both singing its praises, I put the small coil on it and went to my "old reliable" bench to see if I could squeak out another baby nugget. Moved rocks and dug up some sagebrush....initially hunting with trusty GB2 to get a target, then compare it with the Monster. Wow, it could hear the Fly-poo AU I find up there, and the disc was pretty reliable! I found 3 pieces using the GB2 first, then once I was more comfortable with how the Monster responds, it sniffed out 6 more! I noticed on some "iffy" signals that the Goldbug heard, the Monster picked them up a bit better. I was using manual 10 sensitivity and All Metal/deep, and as others have mentioned, it does false if you hit a rock etc. Not using headphones and having no threshold hum was actually nice for a change too. Pretty cool machine....tomorrow I'm going to hit the hard rock gravels and see how it does. :-)

I've had a Gold Bug for 5 or 6 months now. Intermittently when I press the "+" button to increase discrimination it switches into pinpoint mode, will stay there until I release the button and re-press and will then work fine (usually). I've ensured my fat little finger is no where near the pin point button. Been telling myself its likely just some software glitch, annoying, but I can live with it vs. sending it in for repair. Part of me says "get it fixed before the warranty expires stupid". Well cooler weather is here and I will be sending it in. Just curious if any of you have had the same problem?

The Fisher Gold Bug 2 has been around for decades and is well known as one of the most sensitive metal detectors on the market. It has been the gold nugget detector of choice for many over the years. There really has never been a Gold Bug 3 - though some have asked for it. Fisher has now updated the user interface of the GB2. However the features and the guts of the detector remain the same but the user will now have an easier time of operating the machine. It is still a manual ground balance machine, but I think its a good step forward toward making it easier to use. Don't ask me why all Fisher gold oriented detectors are called the Gold Bug. I have no idea. These new versions of the GB 2 are supposed to be available to dealers now. If you have any questions on it, I'll try and answer as best as I can. Anyway, I recently had one in the field and got to try it out. I did a video on it if you are interested in learning more. You can see the video at:

I have a 1990s era Fisher Gold Bug, the original 19 kHz analog version, long since replaced by newer models. The old 19 kHz model was not particularly hot, but it did have an ability to ground balance out some hot rocks that newer and hotter VLF machines struggle with. Original Fisher Gold Bug Data & Reviews The detector came with a 10" elliptical search coil. I have a couple very rare 3.5" round coils that Fisher made for these models before the little 4" x 6" elliptical replaced it. It's the smallest search coil I've ever owned for a commercially sold metal detector, making the unit into more of a probe than a normal detector. The threshold was cutting out if the detector was bumped, something loose, so it's been sitting idle for a very long time. I decided it was doing no good as is, and by chance had an opportunity to call Felix at Fisher recently. Felix is another old-timer in the industry like myself, who I have not talked to since I left my old dealership in Alaska over eight years ago. Anyway, since the detector is still actually functional Felix figured they could give it a good refurbish and fix whatever is loose. The main thing I wanted, however, was to get the detector tuned for the 3.5" coil. Most people do not know it, but analog Gold Bugs are hand tuned for every coil. The coil they ship with is tuned for the detector, or should I say the detector is tuned for the coil. Accessory coils may or may not be a perfect match if the original coil is swapped out for something else. Long story short is I am asking them to match the detector to the 3.5" coil as well as is possible. The original Gold Bug is a genuine classic. Prior to it, detectors were large square boxes with extremely poor ergonomics. The Bug features a very compact control box that is removeable from a S rod, enabling easy chest or hip mounting. The design seems normal now, but you have to have used what came before to see the genius of what Fisher did with the Gold Bug. 19 kHz was also a radically high frequency at the time, as people were just catching on to the idea that higher frequencies are better for small gold nuggets than the lower frequencies that were the norm of the time. The 19 kHz Gold Bug replaced the 4.5 kHz VLF-660 Mother Lode as Fishers top nugget detector. Frankly, Fisher was not seriously in the game prior to this point, with Garrett probably the leader in VLF gold detectors at the time. A new company named Minelab was just starting to sell detectors in Australia, and had yet to really make a name for themselves. Anyway, control box and coil boxed up and on the way to El Paso. I'll let you all know how long it takes and what the result is. Here is a picture of one of the coils. The Gold Bug coils first used a gray dual lead cable, which was replaced very early on with the stouter black cable used to this day. This is the older coil of the two, though it also has less wear. The one I sent in has the heavier cable but is in poor condition. I need to reinforce the coil ears when I get it back since one is cracking. But I decided I wanted to use the coil with the heavier cable, with this older one serving as backup until I sort this all out. And in case anyone is wondering, the old 19 kHz coils do not work on the newer digital versions of the 19 kHz Gold Bug. 3.5" round search coil for original analog Gold Bug To reiterate what a radical design advance the Gold Bug was at the time, here is a picture of the detector it replaced, the 4.5 kHz Mother Lode... Fisher VLF-660 Mother Lode metal detector And the new 19 kHz Gold Bug...

Although I’m not a prospector and haven’t used a gold machine, I did find this interesting that the Gold Bug 2 has received a digital target ID makeover. Here’s a photo from Amazon. There’s also an official ad from Fisher that I lost track of when the site was down. I’m now wondering if maybe the CZ-3D will get the same.

As a lot of people don't bother checking out the First Texas thread these days as very little happens there I figured I'd post this here too, they finally upgraded the Gold Bug 2, with a small facelift to bring it up to the late 1990's 🙂 Nothing performance wise seems to be changed but it has a screen now! You can see the original post by Cipher here I also put a Youtube video on that thread where a guy tests it against various detectors including the GM1000 and GPX 6000. He tests it against his Nox but has it setup incorrectly for nugget detecting so ignore that segment of his video 🙂

Under "meet and Greet" ,my first posting, I had mentioned I am needing to get a new detector as my ol'Garrett had died (but I have since fixed,yeah!). Was torn between the Equinox 540, looks like a pretty nice machine but as I have an original Gold Bug and know what it can do I sure wanted the new Gold Bug DP but the price is a bit painful for my budget ( unemployed). Well my new GB arrived yesterday! Took it out for a quickie last night just to get acquainted with it, to a sand pit, sure wouldn't expect much old goodies as the topsoil was ripped off years ago to mine sand. Been abandoned for a while now though, kids partying, stolen cars getting burnt, target practice, etc but hey...stuff gets lost everywhere...'ya never know. Wasnt there 5 minutes and got a big heavy gold ear ring! Whoo-Hoo! Few minutes later, silver ear ring! Looks gold-ish in the picture but in real life silver colored. Well excitement wore off after looking at it under an eye loupe, plated junk and slightly magnetic but gold just the same. Also found an electrical connector with gold pins and 3 copper pennies.

My Fisher Gold Bug 2 is more like a mining tool than a metal detector. As such it gets subjected to a lot of potential abuse. In particular, I like to sit it upside down, control box on the ground, while I wave my scoop over the bottom of the coil looking for a tiny nugget. I have some money invested in this tool however and I want to take care of it. So I use a little known Fisher secret - the holster / control box cover for the Gold Bug 2. As you may or may not know the Fisher Gold Bug 2 is designed to be taken off the rod assembly, and by way of built in slots put on a belt and hip mounted. This is great for making the rod assembly super light for overhead use, like working a cut bank or steep tailing piles. It also puts the control box under your rain coat for protection. Note that bending over with the box on front of your hip continually bends the coil cable where it attaches to the box and will lead to premature cable failure. I therefore recommend mounting the box on your rear hip as shown. This is over my shirt for the photo, normally my belt would be holding my pants up also! Fisher Gold Bug 2 Belt Slots Fisher Gold Bug 2 Hip Mounted The holster of control box cover for the Gold Bug 2 is made of heavy waterproof cordura nylon with belt loops and a flip cover with velcro closure. It has a hole on the bottom to attach the coil cable and access the threshold control. The top cover has a notch for the headphone jack. The cover is originally designed as a hip mount holster option, using the loops incorporated into the holster instead of those on the control box itself. I wanted to use my control box cover, not for hip mounting, but while rod mounted. Here is a new cover next to my old cover with the slot I cut to allow the box to rod mount with the cover on. Just used scissors, never had an issue with tearing later. The final result - a fully protected Gold Bug 2 control box ready to lay in the dirt. The cover has a tiny pocket on each side but I have never used them. The top flips open easily for a quick control adjustment if needed or can be tucked in and left open if desired. This cover was made for years for the original Gold Bug and Gold Bug 2 and also fits the old 1225X and 1235X models. It was discontinued for several years and then made available again. Last MSRP I saw was $18.95 and part number 103696. Most Fisher dealers probably do not even know this exists so you may have to look around to actually find one in stock someplace. One of those hand made things that probably will be discontinued sometime so I got the second one just to have two.

I will be retiring in the coming months and am preparing to get back into prospecting. My plan is to go "high tech". My view is that I may want a VLF to search for small targets then switch to a PI to punch down deeper for any other potential targets over the same area. I'm leaning strongly toward the Gold Bug 2 for my first detector. I understand after doing some research and watching a bunch of videos on YouTube that the GB2 really excels at recovering small gold. My question is, considering it's operating frequency, what kind of depth is possible with the GB2 and considering ground mineralization?

Although we own Minelabs-Equinox, GP's & other detectors, more and more often my brother Jim and I are using the Gold Bug 2. We've discovered that when we find a patch and after the small nuggets are found, tiny pieces still remain. At the end stage, we can get even more pieces by raking the area. Jim made me this collapsible rake, from a tiny collapsible four tine rake and a welded-on eight tine piece. I can carry it in my backpack and it looks like just the tool for those tiny pieces.

I have a gold bug 2 for some reason it will only work with the head phones now .???

So I found this Gold Bug detector for sale. The owner says it is the GB2 which it appears to be by the housing, but I think it may be an earlier version (?). Id appreciate if anyone could give me some info on this unit. In particular, my questions are: What frequency does it run on? Is it as sensitive as the GB2? Is this maybe something similar to the CZ3D where the older models are more desirable/better? Thanks guys. Jon

With the official announcement on May 15 of the (hopefully) mid-summer release of the Garrett Apex there was considerable discussion of the (only) stock coil planned for release and its affects on depth. Within that discussion Chase gave me incentive to do some testing. This post is a result of that, but since I think my testing is applicable to more than just the Garrett Apex I'm creating this post in the general DetectorProspector forum. The gist of the topic there was how much compromise the 6" (wide) X 11" (tall/high - my choice of word) Apex stock would have on depth. As I mentioned I have quite a few coils for each of my detectors, but subsequently I realized there was one detector (Fisher Gold Bug Pro) and coil combinations (5" DD round and 5" X 10" DD elliptical) which would best address this issue. (I also have some other options -- White's TDI SPP and Minelab X-Terra 705 -- but those are a bit less ideal as will be discussed later. Since I have two other coils for the GB Pro I decided to include those for completeness although they add more variables/concerns and thus don't fit quite as neatly as the other two. I initally started with my variable depth test stand which allows me to vary the depth of small targets in 1/2 inch increments from ~ 1" down to 12" depth in the ground. However, in the midst of that part of the study I realized that I have some (likely iron) trash targets in the field-of-view which compromise the tones/measurements. Fortunately I also have two cleanly placed buried coins -- a copper alloy Lincoln Memorial USA penny buried at 5" depth and a Jefferson nickel alloy 5 cent piece at 6 inch depth. Neither of these currently suffers from nearby trash targets. I subsequently altered my study to use those targets for the coil performance tests. Unfortunately these also aren't ideal since under the conditions of testing they are too shallow to determine in-ground depth limits. What I did as a hybrid compromise is to carefully (i.e. measurably, with shims) raise the coil above the ground until the signal disappeared. For a second (more/less confirmation) test, and one that should be easily repeatable by anyone with the same/similar detector and coils, was to then perform a standard air test. Let's start with the conditions of the tests: 1) Ground conditions -- moist ground (we've had a typical wet Spring season), Fe3O4 mineralization measure of 2.5 bars on both the Fisher Gold Bug and Fisher F75 (2.5 meaning that about half the time I see 2 bars and half the time 3 bars). 2) Gold Bug Pro running in "all metal" ("motion all metal" in USA terminology which I like to call minimally filtered), max gain, threshold at 11 (which is about where Kevin Hoagland calls "mosquito buzzing in your ear"), no headphones (so detector's speaker). 3) My precision for "depth" is 1/2 inch. That coincidentally was the height of the shims I used in the hybrid test and also my ability to control the hand-held coin distance in the air test. 4) My determination of (maximum) depth limit was simple. I increased the depth until I thought I could barely detect an audio signal. I then decreased the target-->detector distance by 1/2 inch and required that I subsequently heard a clear signal. If not I reduced the depth/distance and repeated. Here are the raw data results. I'll explain the meaning of the columns shortly. You can see the four coils I tested. The first three are all Fisher manufactured and the last is the NEL Tornado. Rather than to use the nominal product quoted dimensions ('dim' short for 'dimension' in the column headings) I actually measured the coils and interpolated to account for the fact that a coil doesn't typically have a single extent but rather is a bundle, and further that the bundle obviously fits inside the housing. For the closed coils this is obviously more vague but in those cases I just used half an inch less than the housing dimension. An addition oddity is that DD coils aren't really simple ellipses but some overlap of two independent elliptical coils. 'geom mu' is the geometric mean of the two just determined transverse dimensions -- more specifically the square root of their product. Hopefully you'll see later why I calculated that quantity. It's not really relevant for the main conclusions I draw. The last two columns are the actual distances between the target and coil for the limiting distance (see item 4 above). In the case of the air test that is obvious. In the 'part ground' test that is the sum of the depth of the coin in the ground and the height of the coil above the ground for both coins. At this point I think it's worth discussing some caveats/assumptions/limitations of this test. Then if you've stayed with me I'll go a bit farther and hypothesize on how to use these data to draw conclusions for other coils. 1) Although I chose a detector/coils combination that was as consistent as I could be (same manufacturer and same 'width' coil), it has been discussed on this forum previously (sorry, no link) that the quality control of coil manufacture is a difficult task. It's certainly possible, although not necessarily likely, that my 5" x 10" elliptical coil is a high end tail performer among its peers and/or my 5" round is a low end performer. 2) With any measurement, there are in particular systematic errors and biases. I can't "double blind" my method. That is, I do know which coil I'm testing at a given time and if I have a prejudice for or against a certain coil that could show up in the results. Also, statistical uncertainties (more succinctly, how repeatable are my data) can contribute to errors. It is worth pointing out that swinging the heavy NEL 15" coil effectivly makes taking in-ground measurements with it difficult. As a result I was unable to confidently get a max depth reading for the penny using that coil, which is why that cell is blank. No problem with air tests because there, as is standard (?) I mounted the detector in a stationary horizontal position and just 'swung' the targets to determine the (max) limit distances. Again, it's really the 5" round DD and 5" x 10" elliptical DD that are most relevant. The others are include for information purposes but also to add to the plots I show later. As you can see, in these tests there is a clear and significant advantage for the 5" x 10" elliptical over the 5" round in both the hybrid test and in the air test. OK, I now go a bit deeper. Is there a mathematical relationship which can predict coil depth performance if I know the coil dimensions? Compared to above this is another leap into the unknown with additional uncertainties. However, here are a couple plots which seem to indicate relationships between the potential maximum detectable depth and the geometric mean of the coils width and height dimensions. (Sorry for the confusion but the Blue dots in both plots are for the 1 cent piece and the red dots are for the 5 cent piece.) It's better to look first at the 2nd plot -- air test. There appears to be nearly linear relationship between max depth and the geometric mean of the coil's dimensions, although it appears to trail off with the large (NEL) coil. Superimpose upon that the effects of ground noise and you see a further deterioration both in absolute depth and also in the trend which is shown in the first plot. Simply put, it is well known that mineralized ground, even moderately mineralized as in my back yard, negatively affects attainable depth. The larger the coil, the more ground it "sees", and thus the more ground interferes with performance. I'll finish by pointing out that this isn't the first study I've made. Back 3 years ago when DetectorProspector member Karelian made detailed measurements of a large collection of mono coils on a White's TDI in both ground and air, I noticed the depth vs. geometric mean relationship. However, without a theoretical (physics/engineering) reason to expect this relationship, at this point it's merely a convenient correlation. Karelian's data are further muddied by the fact that the coils studied have many manufacturers: Coiltek, White's, Miner John, Nugget Finder, Minelab,... I could show those results but I think I'll await the reactions to the above. I can also do more tests (e.g. with the X-Terra although there is not clean comparison of round vs. eliptical coils with the same width, at least in my collection) or repeat these. I await your posted reactions (including yawns 😁).

Hello i was wondering if some of you have read anything about this mod . I heard about it twice From France both were the Voltages has been cranked up and maybe some internal mod. The G2/GBP work well on sand not deep but it work,modded it apparently become better on beaches littered with Iron... RR

I as just alerted by a forum member that Cabelas is advertising the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for $574, a new low price. I do not know if this is a clearance sale, or a permanent price reduction, or if it is offered at other dealers. I'm sure we will sort that out real fast! They also have the basic Gold Bug on sale for $375. Do not confuse this with the Gold Bug Pro. The Pro has both ground grab and manual ground balance, the basic Bug has ground grab only. Otherwise however they are the same detector. https://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/_/N-1104188?CQ_view=list&CQ_ztype=GNU&CQ_ref=~type-Gold%2BDetectors

I as just alerted by a forum member that Cabelas is advertising the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for $574, a new low price. I do not know if this is a clearance sale, or a permanent price reduction, or if it is offered at other dealers. I'm sure we will sort that out real fast! They also have the basic Gold Bug on sale for $375. Do not confuse this with the Gold Bug Pro. The Pro has both ground grab and manual ground balance, the basic Bug has ground grab only. Otherwise however they are the same detector. https://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/_/N-1104188?CQ_view=list&CQ_ztype=GNU&CQ_ref=~type-Gold%2BDetectors This may be temporary but it also in my opinion is overdue as a permanent move on the basic Gold Bug at least. That model really should just be discontinued in favor of the nearly identical Gold Bug Pro, but if not it sure needed to come down in price. It adds to the confusion out there and some people buy it thinking they are getting the Pro. Just clear it out and discontinue it. Gold Bug 2 is a tougher story. It is in a class of it's own as an old analog model that with 6" concentric still may best the best tiny gold getter on the market. Newer machines at lower prices may very well equal it though, or close enough for most people. The main problem with the Bug 2 is it is expensive to manufacture so I am not sure a permanent price reduction would be sustainable. Fisher has discontinued several models in the last couple years and may be consolidating or revamping their lineup around the introduction of a new website. Lond story short this may be just a temporary sale or a sign of bigger things... we will see.

There are three versions of the First Texas 19 kHz circuit for sale at many retailers. One is based on the original Gold Bug Pro model, sold with various coil options, and includes the now discontinued Teknetics G2. There is also a basic Gold Bug version with no manual ground balance, the bottom dollar variant. The third version is a later design that added features to the Gold Bug Pro, the result being the Fisher F19. This is now also being sold with various coil options. The F19 is also available under the Teknetics label as the G2+, and now just released under the Bounty Hunter label as the Time Ranger Pro. To reiterate, the Gold Bug Pro and G2 versions are the same circuit board, the only difference between the models are coil and rod options plus cosmetic differences. The same goes for the F19, F19 Ltd, G2+, and new Time Ranger Pro. The same circuit board with different coil and rod options. It is interesting then that the Gold Bug DP, the Gold Bug Pro with 7" x 11" coil sells for $200 more than the more capable Time Ranger Pro. "How can this be," you wonder? The power of name brand and a name, plain and simple. Fisher has a name equated with more expensive detectors, and the Gold Bug name carries it's own cachet. The Bounty Hunter name is usually for lower price models. Welcome to Marketing 101. Based on comparative capability I’d say the Gold Bug Pro is more like a $349 detector these days, so it’s fetching quite a premium. Guide To Gold Bug Versions Gold Bug Pro / G2 versus F19 / G2+ click or double click for larger versions.... Fisher Gold Bug DP and Bounty Hunter Time Ranger Pro Gold Bug Pro and Time Ranger Pro features comparison Gold Bug Pro and Time Ranger Pro controls

Occasionally in posts I see reference to mineralization and how it affects detector performance. It is often vague with usage of words like 'mild, moderate, severe'. In fact several detectors have the capability of measuring it. Two of mine -- Fisher Gold Bug Pro and Fisher F75 -- have that capability. Until now I've typically paid little attention to it. (Magnetite) mineralization and its effects are clearly important in many detecting for native gold situations, but it's also meaningful for other forms of detecting, if nothing else when comparing notes on detector performance. Extreme cases we've seen are Tom Dankowski's reports on the depth he gets in the sandy, non-mineralized soils of Florida vs. Steve Herschbach's difficult Reno parks. An even more extreme example has been reported multiple times by Mark Gillispie in coal ash laden school yards. Here are the pertinent sections from the F75 and F19 (Gold Bug family member) user manuals respectively regarding the meanings of their magetite measurements: Personally I prefer the F75 readout since it quantifies the meaning of the bar levels. Not sure why the Gold Bug scale wasn't equivalently defined, maybe another example of "don't step on the toes of the more expensive model" syndrome.... Yesterday I made measurements in my back yard with both detectors, two coils each (stock Fisher 5" round DD and 7"x11" DD). In all cases I ground balanced before taking the measurements. For the F75 the ground phase values in my backyard as a whole were 61 with its 5" coil and 64 with the 7"x11" coil. In those locations (still F75) the 5" showed 2 bars and the 7"x11" was about 50-50 divided by 2 bars and 3 bars. The measurements made with the Gold Bug were nearly identical in terms of the bars shown (2 with 5" and 2-->3 with 7"x11") for ground phases of ~64.5 and ~60 respectively) even though the scales on the two detectors don't really align in terms of the units of measure. Now here's a possibly interesting and serendipitous observation: for my teststand the readings were 3 bars in three of the four cases (I missed the measurement with the GB Pro and 7"x11" coil). If you refer back to the linked thread there is a drawing which shows a concrete layer at 15" depth. This was made with a store bought bag of concrete mix. Those contain not only the cement but also sand and gravel filler. Where did that sand and gravel come from? I don't know but it sure appears that it came from a site more mineralized than my back yard! I vaguely recall previous measurements I've made (but failed to record -- my bad) in my back yard where the F75 read 4 bars. One thing I wonder about is how much soil moisture affects the measruement. (We haven't had rain for a couple weeks so the ground is considerably drier than typical for the late autumn, winter, early spring months here when I likely took those earlier measurements.) But there are other variables so I wouldn't conclude that moisture does have an effect. One would hope not, but certainly dectectors are known to perform differently when detecting in various soil moisture conditions which is why I wonder. As always I'd be interested in seeing other measurements (regardless of detector model) and comments.

hello, my friend send me this photo, of his fisher gold bug 2. i think he got scammed, but seller refound him. he said that the metal detector work but the switches and ground balance knob don't do anything, so he open the control box and they aren't soldered on the motherboard ( see the red circles in the photo) someone have a picture of the fisher gold bug 2 pcb so we can understand where they had to be soldered, on internet i can't find any picture. i know that metal detector is a stupid chinese copy, but my friend have bought it, he don't know a lot about metal detecting and don't have a lot of money so i want to help him. So at least he can find someone when we go out, without dig iron if we solder the switch. thanks

So I managed to squeeze in another half day outing to my spot up in the mountains. More digging and moving boulders uncovered another 3 pieces of gold for 1.5g. The larger piece is 1g and is quite coarse / rough for this area. The black material is slowly being dissolved by hydrochloric acid. The first photo shows the creek. A little bit of water with a lot of boulders. Historically this creek has produced nuggets up to 12oz, I'm sure under one of the boulders there will be one for me. Will probably be a month before I get time for another look. I'm trying to finish building my house extension in my spare time and my two young daughters keep my busy....

Here are two photos of gold found over the last two trips. This gold was found by removing the gravel in the steam bed and exposing the bedrock. The bedrock was then detected. On both trips several of my gold hunting friends came along. The bigger nugget was 5g and very tricky to recover. Lodged deeply in a crevice under white water. The other pieces total 1.3g. I hope to have time for one more outing before I have to go back to work. I'll keep you posted. Merry Christmas!