Garrett Axiom Vs Minelab 6000

[Steve Herschbach]

6 hours ago, jasong said:

From what I gather reading posts on some of the other subforums - don't most people feel SMF VLF's have sort of already reached a wall? I have to admit my ignorance here as I just don't follow them very closely. But I'm curious if there is much room for expansion there if it's already a mature, crowded product space?

A lightweight GPZ competitor for an affordable price would have no rivals or peers though. Granted, probably a much smaller potential customer base though. But the space is wide open right now due to Minelab's delay - same as it was pre-6000. 

I'm of course biased because these gold detectors account for like 95% of my detecting currently so I definitely want to see new ones even though I know the market for other stuff is better. And I understand coins/relics are a much, much larger market. But it seems like the time is kinda now or never for a competitor looking to enter the scene for something like a GPZ competitor? We aren't quite at the wall yet here as there are some easy improvements to make that ML declined to do on their own (coils, weight, namely). I am struggling to justify trying a $4k Axiom since I already own a GPZ and 6000, but I'd probably hop right onto a $6k lightweight ZAxiom. If another GPZ comes out first though - I'll be right back to where I am now struggling to justify trying one. 

Phones hit a wall for making phone calls some time back. But new models come out constantly, and get bought. In tech you either produce product or go away. Multi is no more maxed out than PI. Good luck with the 8000. The fact is the nugget market is drying up and coin and relic is where the action is. Remember almost all detectors sold in the US and Europe are coin and relic.

Plenty of room yet for a PI priced right. Axiom is still twice what it needs to be to get mass numbers going. Axiom at $1995 everyone would have one. Somebody will do it, just a matter of time.

[mn90403]

12 minutes ago, jasong said:

I'd probably hop right onto a $6k lightweight AxiomZ.

What exactly would this AxiomZ marketing brochure have to tell you so that you know it is an improvement over what we have?  Could a marketing department put bells and whistles on a similar performance detector and get us (you) to buy it and not call it out for being not enough improvement for the bucks laid out?

Our patches have been decimated and you can always say that nothing gets it all but that doesn't bring back what has already been taken either.  The expectation that a new detector is going to pay for itself going back to old patches is a high hurdle to jump.  New patches are hard to find but those are still the most rewarding for a detectorist looking to make a buck.

[phrunt]

Technology does hit walls where improvements are few and far between, Computer CPU's hit the wall a decade ago when it came to the GHz speeds, my CPU in my computer when I moved from Australia to NZ about 11 years ago had a faster clock speed than my current machine,  Physics, transistor limitations and heat dissipation all put a halt to just increasing clock speeds to give a new model.  Now the best way to increase computer speed has been having multiple processors, essentially more than one CPU, we used to do that with multiple CPU's on a motherboard, now we can just have multi core processors.  Even then there are limits again heat being a big issue.

I think detectors are similar beasts, yes things have improved but performance isn't the biggest factor that's changing.

Technology made by other companies such as Bluetooth and faster processors has helped improve detectors but the changes aren't as dramatic as perhaps they used to be.   There comes a point when a customer such as myself who has a GPZ and GPX 5000 and 6000 thinks would I really benefit from a GPZ 8000 if the major improvements they make to the 8000 are just Bluetooth LE, a nicer screen, a lighter package, carbon fiber all over the place, and some new coil sizes, perhaps taking on concentric coils after seeing the aftermarket's success with them but of course now moving the chips into the coils.

Someone like me that has a lot of coils for my GPZ is probably going to be the most difficult customer to convince to buy a GPZ 8000 but even for many existing owners may not overly see the upgrade as worthwhile if the performance isn't all that much different to their existing model.

I don't detect in salty soil, so just by putting my little 8" on my GPZ I basically have a GPX 6000 without even buying one but I have more features and control over my detecting and shed a lot of weight too with the little light coil

So they can likely rule people like me out as customers unless they can somehow dramatically improve performance, then all those happy enough with what they've got, especially when people start doing comparison videos and the videos mostly show similar performance in a nicer lighter package.   Then rule out the African market and what do they have left? An increasingly small pool of people to sell it to, someone who just bought a GPX 6000 is unlikely to get rid of it in the near future to get a GPZ 8000 unless they're very serious gold hunters with good ground to hunt.   The average weekend warrior may not find it viable.

They held back the GPZ 7000 small gold performance by never releasing small coils for it, this opened up being able to create the GPX 6000, but what could they have held back for a GPZ 8000 that hasn't already been opened up by aftermarket coils for the 7000?  That's the big question.  

The GPZ may be like the CTX and not get a successor.   I doubt we'll see another CTX unfortunately, love that detector.

.

 

[mn90403]

Simon,

For all of the reasons you have listed (including cost) and others reasons from Steve, jasong and other contributors, it has added up to detectors used by OLD PEOPLE!

Where is the new generation of YOUNG DETECTORISTS in the gold fields?

Most of what I hear from forum members is that it is difficult for them to get their kids, grandkids and younger folks interested in nugget hunting.  There are too many other things to do.

Now they are trying to kill the gas engines which get us way out there so an era is coming to an end it seems.

 

[phrunt]

Don't worry Mitchel, there is quite a healthy population of younger detector prospectors in Australia especially, they just all hang around younger people social media sites more so than forums so they are primarily just showing cool photos of their big gold finds more than sharing information and discussing detector technologies.  🙂  The younger people in Australia are attracted to the hobby there with how much gold they're able to find, yes skill is required but their hunting grounds are much more favorable than most of us have available to us in other countries.

I don't know if the US is the same, there is certainly a big population of younger people in Australia looking for nuggets.

 

 

[Gold Catcher]

9 hours ago, jasong said:

seems like Garrett could have a chance to beat Minelab to the punch with a lightweight GPZ competitor that many of us have been waiting ages for, and thus holding off purchases of a more lateral move like the Axiom. 

ZVT is a genuine ML invention and its underlying technology likely covered by patents with many years of coverage. So, I don't see how anyone could make a GPZ/ ZVT successor, other than ML itself. One thing to say about ML is that they have driven innovation in the detector technology like no other. If a competitor would want to truly match or even displace ZVT performance with their own high-end detector it would have to come up with a truly innovative and differentiated technology, just what ZVT has been for ML, or perhaps Geosense if you believe in it. And not just reformatting technology that was already existing or for which patents had already expired (not referring to a particular company here, just saying in general). Do other brands have the same R&D engine as ML is having? Perhaps. But I believe it when I see it.

GC

[mn90403]

Just like a new model of a car.  It has to contribute to the bottom line.

You have your design and technology waiting to satisfy a known market.

[mn90403]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

I don't know if the US is the same,

If you attend the club meetings I go to in the Los Angeles area you will know it is not the same.  Clubs are losing members because of age and no buzz about good ground.

Relics and the beaches are different.  Younger detectorists there competing with us old guys.

[Norvic]

14 hours ago, Gold Catcher said:

or perhaps Geosense if you believe in it

Geosense is MLs latest word/term, over the years in their detector development they have come up with many such protected words/terms covering their inventions. I have learnt to trust each and every one such ML detector "buzz" word and use each new detector in accordance with that belief. The reason I have developed this trust in ML is simply this trust has put the weight in the pocket, Geosense/6K has done so straight from the box, as ZVT, SETA etc etc. did. Disclaimer...  I`m talking their detector development not their coil development for equally I`ve learnt not to trust that, even before the top X coils proved conclusively so on the Z.

Like Steve posted if the Axiom had been released before the 6K, it also would`ve been hot like the 6K has proved to be. Me too I`d love to see a Z with Geosense and an Axiom with Geosense but back to the thread Axiom vs 6K simply Geosense did it for me but the Axiom is certainly no slouch and I hope Garrett keep "R and Ding" it.