Too High Gold ID Problem

[Skull diver]

I want to address this discussion without attacking any person at all, but take this opportunity to technically discuss my experience of research adopting the Deus2 on the seabed.

That being said, I have had a rare case of misleading target ID happen to me, and although I read everywhere among you detailed tests of gold pieces falling in the high end up to about 85 points, I want to explain my drawback.

The ring you observe in the photo, is an ordinary wedding ring that probably because of its thickness, responds with a solid 80.

Forgive my assertion, but this is damning, considering the multitude of coins and leads that fall within those figures.

While this is a rare case, which I might estimate on a scale of 1 to 10 as a 2, it means a significant loss of effectiveness in selecting signals worthy of excavation.

I am ready to receive any comment from those who dig any repeatable signal, but I want to remember my own difficulty during a dive session, when with zero visibility, freezing water and time running down for the air termination, this is a detriment.

My point is a subtle one that the so-called Pros will probably understand better, and by that I am not calling anyone stupid.

(Life has brought me to the condition of having to live more and more frequently with only the gold production I derive).

That said, the incredibly large scale where gold responds in the ID scale makes for an unproductive session, digging up too many potential high gold IDs.

I hope and wish that Xp would consider a future change in the distribution of low conductors on the ID scale and as much as I may be technically wrong, there are tools that prove otherwise although they may operate with different algorithms.

Feel free to say your thoughts on it, but that's the harsh truth.

[F350Platinum]

I agree SD, it seems that gold rings may have always been a problem, and it may be because of the alloys used to strengthen it or enhance its beauty. Silver content probably is what pushes rings into a higher number range.

Here is a memorable one for me, a ~200 year old 14k ring I found in a field.

It was a 79. Our new 1 cent coins -well, new since 1983 - the ones we call "Zincolns" because they are mostly zinc with copper plating are notoriously in the high 70s. When one tires of finding so many of them it could definitely cost one a gold ring.

I totally understand your frustration when time is limited by life giving air, my time is mostly limited by when my wife wants me to get back from treasure hunting 🙄

This may be a problem with little solution. 

Looking forward to any comments you have on the RCDIGS mount! I always read your posts.

[Skull diver]

2 hours ago, F350Platinum said:

I agree SD, it seems that gold rings may have always been a problem, and it may be because of the alloys used to strengthen it or enhance its beauty. Silver content probably is what pushes rings into a higher number range.

Here is a memorable one for me, a ~200 year old 14k ring I found in a field.

It was a 79. Our new 1 cent coins -well, new since 1983 - the ones we call "Zincolns" because they are mostly zinc with copper plating are notoriously in the high 70s. When one tires of finding so many of them it could definitely cost one a gold ring.

I totally understand your frustration when time is limited by life giving air, my time is mostly limited by when my wife wants me to get back from treasure hunting 🙄

This may be a problem with little solution. 

Looking forward to any comments you have on the RCDIGS mount! I always read your posts.

I added a positive review on the mount, which finally made the instrument decent when I use it under the surface ...

https://www.detectorprospector.com/topic/25081-rcdigs-deus-2-rc-mount-review/?do=findComment&comment=267595

[Skull diver]

2 hours ago, F350Platinum said:

Here is a memorable one for me, a ~200 year old 14k ring I found in a field.

 

This piece is absolutely beautiful.
Knowing that it is two centuries old is even better!
I can't easily explain my thoughts about the ID allocation, but taking into account a more "compressed" Ctx on 50 maximum points, I would have thought Deus2 more accurate and effective in isolating low conductors, but instead I find them scattered everywhere between 35 and 80...I have no other way to explain how much I want a solution to this problem.
No doubt with the 9" coil the Deus2 outperforms the Ctx with the 11" coil in depth, but discrimination still remains to be improved and by a lot.

[midalake]

19 hours ago, Skull diver said:

I am ready to receive any comment from those who dig any repeatable signal, but I want to remember my own difficulty during a dive session, when with zero visibility, freezing water and time running down for the air termination, this is a detriment.

In my years of beach experience, regardless of detector the biggest thing I have learned is: Nothing is the same in salt and Black Sand.  My policy is to remove everything that I think is nonferrous. 

One cannot trust anything at depth to give you a correct number. 

With the D2 myself, I harvested a whopping 16g 14k white gold ring that blew my ears off with a 99. 

Also to date, of all the detectors I have owned the D2 clearly throws numbers all over the place and is the most unreliable to group any kind of targets. 

[Skull diver]

33 minutes ago, midalake said:

In my years of beach experience, regardless of detector the biggest thing I have learned is: Nothing is the same in salt and Black Sand.  My policy is to remove everything that I think is nonferrous. 

One cannot trust anything at depth to give you a correct number. 

With the D2 myself I harvested a whopping 16g 14k white gold ring that blew my ears off with a 99. 

Also to date, of all the detectors I have owned the D2 clearly throws numbers all over the place and is the most unreliable to group any kind of targets. 

I remain with a bitter taste in my mouth, probably used to a totally different pattern as much as obsolete.

Perhaps that is what I do not tolerate in a newer instrument.

Every purchase represents an investment and improvement of one's equipment, but sometimes the comparison with old instruments is deleterious.

[Jeff McClendon]

Your situation, needing to not waste time recovering unwanted targets due to diving time restraints is very real.

Yes, Deus 2's roughly 35 to 82 (47 points) gold jewelry target ID range is large.

Manticore and Equinox 700/900 and I assume X-Terra Pro equivalent range is roughly 10 to 64 (54 points).

Nokta Legend equivalent range is roughly 13 to 42 (29 points).

Equinox 600/800 equivalent range is roughly 5 to 23 (18 points).

So, I cannot say which target ID system is better comparing target IDs being more spread out or compressed. All of the same issues apply as far as good and bad targets sharing the same target IDs in spread out and compressed systems. Not only do all zinc core USA pennies share the same target IDs as some large/high gold content gold rings, but at least where I detect, so do many "Bling" jewelry targets and small aluminum screw caps for 50 ml shot bottles.

For me, since these detectors don't have displayed target imaging, I lean first on the audio response qualities of the target itself and the target ID together to determine a dig/don't dig decision. I have dug many gold rings in the last 5 years since purchasing an Equinox 600. Several have had target IDs at the upper end of the low to mid conductor range with target IDs that were the same as a USA zinc penny. Every gold ring I have recovered in that time (77) has had very distinctive audio as in "I have to dig that target" except for one that had a fractured shank while using one of the detectors I mentioned above. I don't want to get into an argument with anyone about this distinctive audio. I will say that I work really hard with lots of practice on making sure that I really know what the most common gold target ID range targets tend to sound like and what their accompanying target ID tendencies are. I lean heavily on their audio response characteristics. But, I am detecting on land or at most with the coil and lower shaft submerged and I don't have to deal with problems associated with clearly hearing target responses when fully submerged.

Sorry I don't have any easy fix answers for you.

 

[Skull diver]

@Jeff McClendon

I am still chagrined to this day, by the way newer, more advanced instruments have this "flaw."

A 2013 Ctx isolates damn well in 30 points a mass of gold objects of any shape and weight.

Unfortunately, the depth of detection is at least 20 percent less than a Deus2 or a Manticore.

I had a chance to test and film the Equinox 800 and after a week of creating promotional videos and instructions for use, I returned it to the dealer with no regrets.

Minelab buried the Ctx without releasing any updates and that was really bad.

Even today it is still being sold at the exact same price as the launch.I wonder why.

[EL NINO77]

In selective detection, it depends on which zone of the VDI target I am focusing on,,,and accordingly I use a detector that has these properties that I require.. There are many detectors that are very good at detection..but only some have the required range of VDI in the zones that I need to use. ..

XP Even though *VDI has a range of more than a hundred numbers.. its VDI zone on very low-conductivity non-ferrous targets starts at +28VDI .. and then rises very quickly.. to a very high VDI.. so the zone of low-conductivity targets is expanded .. even if practically, we have a range of all non-ferrous targets somewhere between +28 and +99VDI, which is a total of 71 VDI numbers for non-ferrous targets.

[midalake]

11 hours ago, Skull diver said:

A 2013 Ctx isolates damn well in 30 points a mass of gold objects of any shape and weight.

Unfortunately, the depth of detection is at least 20 percent less than a Deus2 or a Manticore

I think there are some people that would debate depth loss. On a 3030.