Coiltek Coils For The GPX 6000 - Confirmed!

[nugget]

15 hours ago, Lesgold said:

I would expect that Coiltek will be testing a range of coils to suit the 6k. The 14x9 would be my guess for the first release as they have the tooling and equipment already in place for that specific size.

Lets hope the 14x9 is the first cab off rank.

[Steve Herschbach]

18 hours ago, Rob Allison said:

Steve - There is a smaller NF coil, the Z Search 12" Round for the GPZ 7000.  I have been using this coil since the release and I really like it.  They are back in stock again, plus they now have heavy duty skid plates for them.  

The NF coil is a whole 1” narrower Rob - consider me entirely underwhelmed, and why I basically ignore it. It’s too close to the stock coil as far as I’m concerned, to be worth the money. I like coils to be widely different in size and shape. The NF coil was a huge disappointment to me after waiting so long for a small coil, small being 11” round or smaller in my book. The draft Minelab manual for the GPZ 7000, page 39, showed an 11” coil as a future option. That set my expectation, and I'm still grumpy it never happened.

[Jonathan Porter]

5 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

The NF coil is a whole 1” narrower Rob - consider me entirely underwhelmed, and why I basically ignore it. It’s too close to the stock coil as far as I’m concerned, to be worth the money. I like coils to be widely different in size and shape. The NF coil was a huge disappointment to me after waiting so long for a small coil, small being 11” round or smaller in my book. The draft Minelab manual for the GPZ 7000, page 39, showed an 11” coil as a future option. That set my expectation, and I'm still grumpy it never happened.

A 300 gram weight reduction is no small thing on a GPZ, that fact alone is why they’ve sold so well in Australia, then we also need to consider the very obvious improvement in sensitivity and then there’s the EMI and Saturation signal reduction. I suppose if you think of the Zsearch as ’’It’s only an inch smaller”  the GPX11 mono on the 6000 is underwhelming also as it’s only 1 inch smaller than the 12” Zsearch. ? ? Continuing to be a bit cheeky here it was not that long ago it seemed the GPX17 elliptical was being talked up as the ultimate US combination, now that’s a horse of a coil compared to the 12” Zsearch. ?  I do not mean to offend or get personal and I truly do understand where the frustration is coming from, so I hope my tongue in cheek but still serious counter argument is seen as me just offering a different perspective on the subject. ??

The GPX6000 should be a lot easier to make a variety of coils for, retail cost alone is way less than a GPZ so it should not break the bank to own a few different sizes, this will also mean the developers can take the risk of investing in a range of shapes and sizes that do not have to top the charts sales wise to recover their investment. Hopefully this will mean that ‘all of us’ will finally get our wish lists fulfilled.

I’ve had many discussions with Nugget Finder over the past 2 years about what coil sizes to build and what would sell well, clearly there is demand for a smaller more manoeuvrable coil but at the same time there is a lot of pressure for a larger coil (probably even greater than the demand for a smaller one) but overwhelmingly there is/was a huge demand for a lot lighter coil to be developed that would make the GPZ much more user friendly to a lot more people, to that end I think NF nailed it. Now that the GPX6000 has been released I think retrospectively NF made a good call on the 12” size range, that size still has merit for a GPZ user who also owns or is contemplating owing a GPX6000. 

JP

 

[Chase Goldman]

11 minutes ago, Jonathan Porter said:

A 300 gram weight reduction is no small thing on a GPZ, that fact alone is why they’ve sold so well in Australia, then we also need to consider the very obvious improvement in sensitivity and then there’s the EMI and Saturation signal reduction. I suppose if you think of the Zsearch as ’’It’s only an inch smaller”  the GPX11 mono on the 6000 is underwhelming also as it’s only 1 inch smaller than the 12” Zsearch. ? ? Continuing to be a bit cheeky here it was not that long ago it seemed the GPX17 elliptical was being talked up as the ultimate US combination, now that’s a horse of a coil compared to the 12” Zsearch. ?  I do not mean to offend or get personal and I truly do understand where the frustration is coming from, so I hope my tongue in cheek but still serious counter argument is seen as me just offering a different perspective on the subject. ??

JP - I think Steve was coming at it from the perspective of value and cost based on what you have already invested in the machine.  He explicitly stated that.  If you already have a coil of a certain dimension, it is not necessarily a great value to invest in a coil that has only incremental differences in weight, dimensions, or performance than the coil you already have.  If you are starting from scratch with no money invested in any coil and were able to choose one or the other, than that is a whole different situation.  You are looking at the NF coil from a standalone basis or from a comparison basis as if the subject did not already own the reference coil.  I think that was point Steve was trying to make, not that the NF is underwhelming in its own right but compared to what is already owned.  Anyway, that's how I interpreted Steve's response.  I might be off base.

[Jonathan Porter]

45 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

JP - I think Steve was coming at it from the perspective of value and cost based on what you have already invested in the machine.  He explicitly stated that.  If you already have a coil of a certain dimension, it is not necessarily a great value to invest in a coil that has only incremental differences in weight, dimensions, or performance than the coil you already have.  If you are starting from scratch with no money invested in any coil and were able to choose one or the other, than that is a whole different situation.  You are looking at the NF coil from a standalone basis or from a comparison basis as if the subject did not already own the reference coil.  I think that was point Steve was trying to make, not that the NF is underwhelming in its own right but compared to what is already owned.  Anyway, that's how I interpreted Steve's response.  I might be off base.

Yes I read most of it that way too, I do see his VERY valid points. And I also understand his position and his decision to opt out of the 7000 after waiting so long for ML to deliver the promised 11” coil. I get that a one inch reduction was not enough of an advantage for him to consider the coil for his purposes especially when you consider the entry price. Like I said I do not wish to offend just provide a counter argument to some of what has been written based from a different perspective without devaluing his opinions etc.

As an example the shape of a DOD coil on the outside is pretty much pointless as the interaction between the Tx and Rx windings determines the shape and how far out of shape you can go with the design. DOD coils are not conducive to being pushed too far out of shape so in the end you end up with a semi elliptic design or an obvious elliptical shell that does not have a winding inside that’s reflects the housing (as is the case with the elliptical X coils).  This point alone will always dictate the final shape of a DOD coil, or if you decide to do a housing that is overly elliptical you will have a large amount of forward section of coil with near zero target sensitivity due to the receive points being pushed further back from the front. A catch 22 from a developers POV.

 

 

[Steve Herschbach]

It’s just my opinion, thats all. Not a right or wrong thing, or a test with a correct answer and an incorrect answer. It’s incredibly frustrating to see X Coil make dozens of coils in all sizes and shapes, while anyone wanting plug and play is left with basically nothing by comparison. As an end user and consumer, all excuses as to why that might be fall on my ears as just that - excuses. I miss the old SD/GP/GPX days when we got new coils every year like clockwork, in every size and shape imaginable. Now we don’t. Are there valid reasons for that? No doubt, but frankly I just don’t care, and I suspect I’m not alone in that sentiment.

[Jonathan Porter]

You have very valid reasons for being frustrated Steve so no argument from me. The X coil thing is a ‘no checks and measures’ freedom all aftermarket coil makers used to enjoy but alas NF have to pay the price for ‘plug and play’ freedom by being required to jump through a lot of hoops which is very time consuming, I presume Coiltek will also be jumping through those very same hoops and would likely explain the mid 2022 advised release dates.

Trying to develop a smaller coil for the GPZ when the rumours of a better GPX being in the works would have been a nightmare to try and crystal ball. As it is our Zsearch sales have dropped right off since the release of the 6000 so those fears have been to a pretty large extent realised (you do however need to take into consideration our season is about to end with summer coming on).

I would like to see a smaller Zsearch and also a larger one but if I have three Zsearch coils that’s a lot of coin invested, for a lot of people that would be prohibitive and I would say NF are very aware of that. Do they invest R&D time into a smaller coil when the GPX6000 is doing such a good job on the smaller gold or do they invest in a larger coil that might have a smaller sales volume instead? I’d say ML did not deliver on more coils for the GPZ for the very same reasons with the added development disincentive of the GPZ 7000 still continuing to sell well in its current guise.

JP

[Steve Herschbach]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

I would like to see a smaller Zsearch and also a larger one but if I have three Zsearch coils that’s a lot of coin invested, for a lot of people that would be prohibitive and I would say NF are very aware of that. Do they invest R&D time into a smaller coil when the GPX6000 is doing such a good job on the smaller gold or do they invest in a larger coil that might have a smaller sales volume instead? I’d say ML did not deliver on more coils for the GPZ for the very same reasons with the added development disincentive of the GPZ 7000 still continuing to sell well in its current guise.

I’m only bringing the GPZ up due to all that I hear from faithful GPZ owners. The ones who stood by Minelab and Nugget Finder and Coiltek, loyally waiting for the coils they craved. They endured being made fun of by X Coil owners, who got the coils that they themselves wished they had. What has been their reward for being loyal, extremely patient customers? Not much, in my estimation.

Is the 11” only an inch smaller than the 12” which is an inch smaller than the narrow width of the GPZ stock coil? Yes, that’s a fact, and if you want to talk weight differences, it’s far lighter than the NF 12, which alone costs a full quarter of the purchase price of a GPX 6000 with two coils! So consider me well satisfied to have ditched the GPZ and replaced it with the GPX 6000. The three coils I already have suit me just fine were there to be no more 6000 coils at all, simply because I do think an 11” coil is a sweet spot of sorts. A even smaller coil is something I desire, but the 11” is still just fine for the majority of my use. Minelab must agree, since every PI they ever made came with an 11” coil.

The 17” mono is a dream coil that will probably be my most used coil next year. I still honestly believe that in the U.S., on most ground, and most gold we encounter, the GPX 6000 is the optimum detector choice at this time. That being the case the GPZ situation is moot to me personally, but I truly feel the pain of those who have waited, and continue to wait, for a plug and play coil selection befitting the worlds most expensive consumer level metal detector ever produced.

[Jonathan Porter]

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

The 17” mono is a dream coil that will probably be my most used coil next year. I still honestly believe that in the U.S., on most ground, and most gold we encounter, the GPX 6000 is the optimum detector choice at this time. That being the case the GPZ situation is moot to me personally, but I truly feel the pain of those who have waited, and continue to wait, for a plug and play coil selection befitting the worlds most expensive consumer level metal detector ever produced.

Definitely not trying to defend ML here or ruffle your feathers Steve, I agree in a large part with you fully. My point however is that at least now there’s a start to accessory coil options for the GPZ which although only a bit smaller is a lot lighter. Those faithful loyal GPZ customers who have been patiently waiting unfortunately only represent a small part of the overall GPZ market (of course I empathise with them I’m one of them?), whereas the GPX6000 will demographically sell a lot differently hence the announcement of more coil options so soon after the release.

The main market where the bulk of GPZ’s are sold are not interested in the Zsearch 12, they have a totally different approach to their search for gold, its all about big deep nuggets which for them is mostly in virgin ground and the GPZ 7000 with its 14 inch coil still largely fits that bill. Also for those interested,  a Zsearch 12 inch with lower shaft costs $1295 here in Australia whereas a GPX6000 costs approx 6 times more at $7999 (with 2 coils), I’m not sure of the comparative prices in US dollars.

Prior to the release of the 6000 the GPZ 7000 was the only real choice for depth and small target sensitivity compared to a GPX 5000, the ZVT tech will always be a heavy unit due to the requirement of 3 windings in the coil so I seriously doubt we will ever see a sub 1 kilogram coil or small coils on any future ZVT models if ML develop anything going forward, it’s just not possible and TBH not required now we have the amazing GPX6000. ? ZVT is all about max depth.

Just my opinion from my own perspective. 

JP