DEPTH CHART how low can you go POLL

[Michigan Badger]

Okay, we've all see these before and most have ruled them out as "rediculous."

Personally, I believe them

So far I've found the test on the Tejon, Nautilus IIB, Sovereign GT, DeLeon, and Silver uMax are dead center accurate when tested as he tested them.

I've had a few thank me in PM's for posting about the super depth of the Tesoro uMax with 12x10 inch coil. I got the original idea from the 1st chart at this site. He used a web 9x8 concentric coil in his test. I used the 12x10. After trying the Silver uMas with the 12x10 at my old sites I sold my Tejon. My Tejon wasn't nearly as deep. The last straw was when I got a nice solid signal with the Silver and couldn't get even a tick from the Tejon. I dug a silver War Nickel at about 9 inches deep.

What do U think? Do tell all...

SEE CHARTS:

http://www.staffsmetaldetectors.co.uk/depth_test.htm

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[The Beep Goes On]

I don't know...the charts do make me happy that I own an SE, though

HH!
TBGO

 

[Michigan Badger]

I don't know...the charts do make me happy that I own an SE, though

HH!
TBGO

Awesome! I just knew there was somebody else in the world who likes these charts

 

[bakergeol]

Badger
So far "I like Apple juice" is ahead in your poll.

If memory serves me correct there was some controversy about these particular depth charts. I believe a Minelab bias was suggested.

Actually I believe all these depth tests from different sources do help. If your detector consistently ranks in poor depth comparisons everyone is not lying.

George

 

[thompy]

i havent tryed enough of the machines listed, but by reputation of said machines the chart sounds fair, most items i come across are not that deep, seperation is my bigger issue, and handling the minerals in some areas, the t-2 covers this well, wish they would make a smaller coil, dont know if it would really be an avantage on this machine but would give it a try

 

[Michigan Badger]

i havent tryed enough of the machines listed, but by reputation of said machines the chart sounds fair, most items i come across are not that deep, seperation is my bigger issue, and handling the minerals in some areas, the t-2 covers this well, wish they would make a smaller coil, dont know if it would really be an avantage on this machine but would give it a try

Thanks for the post.

Ever find any Copper Culture goodies? A couple of years ago I had a chance to hunt with some guys in the UP but I was never able to go with them. I was having bad knee problems at the time.

Badger

 

[Michigan Badger]

Badger

If memory serves me correct there was some controversy about these particular depth charts. I believe a Minelab bias was suggested.

Actually I believe all these depth tests from different sources do help. If your detector consistently ranks in poor depth comparisons everyone is not lying.

George

That's an understatement. In fact, some still blast this guy without mercy. I don't know if all the uproar is because they think the charts are wrong or because they know they're right.

I agree, I'd like to see more charts done.

Badger

 

[EDDE]

cut 1/4 hammered penny i come out on top
5 pence i come out at 21 or 22 depending on"the count"
george the 3rd 37
17 in the iron test

 

[EasyMoney]

I wrote a letter to that guy about 4 months ago after reading his ridiculous chart and statements.

It is clear that he (by his own admission) simply turned the detectors on, used factory setting and never did use them long enough to know how well they worked or how deep they went or how they operated in other situations. Personally I chewed him out for misleading the public that way and for his bias towards Minelabs and his hatred for White's and Fishers. He is DEAD WRONG about his Tesoro depth claims too, because I went right ahead and tested mine just to make sure. Another chap I know wrote to him and said the same thing and chewed him out too..

Many people on other forums just think he is a joke, including some very heavy hitters in the detector engineering world. I won't mention names but I think most of you know who I'm talking about.

If you read the charts a bit more discrimininately you will notice that he puts many White's right in with Maplins, and any fool knows that that is no comparison at all. Maplins are just pure junk. I have OWNED or DO OWN OR USED OR REPAIRED many of the detectors he supposedly "tested" and he is absolutely full of crap! He shouldn't put that online because a lie is a lie is a lie even if it's not meant to be, and he's causing some unknowing people to blow their money on some worthless piece of trash just so he can sell his Minelabs. The one about the Sovereigns is one of the most ridiculous. The one about the Explorer SE and II are even more funny. There are others just as silly too, including the Tejons, Vaqueros, Compasses and cz's, etc.. A Tejon in moderate soil with it's stock coil blows an Explorer SE or II clear out of the ballpark because I've seen it. And I don't even like the Tejon for my uses, it's too squirrely for me, although it works very well in other parts of the USA and Europe..

There are over 300 detectors that he so-called "tested" one against the other. Even a cheap Bounty Hunter takes more than 1 hour to test and to learn to use effectively. A high end White's, Fisher, Minelab, even a Tesoro requires not a few minutes but a few HOURS, as much as 50 hours of use to learn how to use it properly. If you do the math you can clearly see that he didn't have time to test any of those detectors correctly enough to call it concise, after all, and as he said in his statements, his findings were merely spur of the moment and that none of his tests were concrete or conclusive. DUH! At least he was right when he made that statement, but many people don't even know that he did even that!

Here are some facts, not opinions:

The average cheap detector takes at least 2 hours to learn so as to be able to get the best depth out of it

The average DFX, Explorer, Coinstrike takes at least 50 hours to do the same. Some people need even longer than that.

If there are more of the high end detectors sold than the low end ones then that means that the average detector requires at least 20 hours to learn it and use it effectively and to get the best depth out of it.

20 hours X 300 detectors equals 6000 hours of testing and use!!!!

NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SPENDS THAT MUCH TIME TESTING ALL THOSE DETECTORS, and I told him so too. He in his statemest on the site admits that too!

Pay attention to him. Look at what he pedals. See what he tries to push in his other posts on other sites. I have. He sells mostly Minelabs and he is biased and partial to them because they make him more profits, not because they go deeper. It's all business, and nothing more. I think it's a con, and my personal tests on at least 30 of his claims with the same detectors using the same settings proved to my satisfaction that he is merely making a lot of it up, and in fact probably didn't really test them all at all. Otherwise, he must be a really bored man and needs to get out of the house instead of spending more than 6000 hours "testing" metal detectors. Get a girlfriend dude, or a job, but get out of the house!

At 40 hours a week for "testing" it would take him 150 weeks or 250 days working NIGHT AND DAY to do all those tests and to learn those machines! Get real! NOBODY is stupid enough to think he did THAT! Again though, he admitted to just basically turning them on and trying them, but that would take him more than 15 minutes each which equals 1500 hours just to test them without even knowing how they really work or what their potential is. I'm not buying it though.

I think the guy is a fake and I told him so. If he doesn't like it, that's tough. People like that just about make me puke. I can't stand a liar, and think he is one. He and others like him really upset me, and to the max.

 

[findit]

Re: hey easy money

easy, well said. all i have to say is alot of people who don't know will believe what someone tells them if it satisfies their curiosity. it is so easy to be deceptive especially over the internet. not saying this guy is not for real. he could be 100% for real or he could be a 9 year old kid who made up a chart on his parents computer. don't know i never met him. does anybody else know him personally?

 

[EDDE]

I wrote a letter to that guy about 4 months ago after reading his ridiculous chart and statements.

It is clear that he (by his own admission) simply turned the detectors on, used factory setting and never did use them long enough to know how well they worked or how deep they went or how they operated in other situations. Personally I chewed him out for misleading the public that way and for his bias towards Minelabs and his hatred for White's and Fishers. He is DEAD WRONG about his Tesoro depth claims too, because I went right ahead and tested mine just to make sure. Another chap I know wrote to him and said the same thing and chewed him out too..

Many people on other forums just think he is a joke, including some very heavy hitters in the detector engineering world. I won't mention names but I think most of you know who I'm talking about.

If you read the charts a bit more discrimininately you will notice that he puts many White's right in with Maplins, and any fool knows that that is no comparison at all. Maplins are just pure junk. I have OWNED or DO OWN OR USED OR REPAIRED many of the detectors he supposedly "tested" and he is absolutely full of crap! He shouldn't put that online because a lie is a lie is a lie even if it's not meant to be, and he's causing some unknowing people to blow their money on some worthless piece of trash just so he can sell his Minelabs. The one about the Sovereigns is one of the most ridiculous. There are others just as silly too, including the Tejons, Vaqueros and cz's, etc..

There are over 300 detectors that he so-called "tested" one against the other. Even a cheap Bounty Hunter takes more than 1 hour to test and to learn to use effectively. A high end White's, Fisher, Minelab, even a Tesoro requires not a few minutes but a few HOURS, as much as 50 hours of use to learn how to use it properly. If you do the math you can clearly see that he didn't have time to test any of those detectors correctly enough to call it concise, after all, and as he said in his statements, his findings were merely spur of the moment and that none of his tests were concrete or conclusive. DUH! At least he was right when he made that statement, but many people don't even know that he did even that!

Here are some facts, not opinions:

The average cheap detector takes at least 2 hours to learn so as to be able to get the best depth out of it

The average DFX, Explorer, Coinstrike takes at least 50 hours to do the same. Some people need even longer than that.

If there are more of the high end detectors sold than the low end ones then that means that the average detector requires at least 20 hours to learn it and use it effectively and to get the best depth out of it.

20 hours X 300 detectors equals 6000 hours of testing and use!!!!

NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SPENDS THAT MUCH TIME TESTING ALL THOSE DETECTORS, and I told him so too. He in his statemest on the site admits that too!

Pay attention to him. Look at what he pedals. See what he tries to push in his other posts on other sites. I have. He sells mostly Minelabs and he is biased and partial to them because they make him more profits, not because they go deeper. It's all business, and nothing more. I think it's a con, and my personal tests on at least 30 of his claims with the same detectors using the same settings proved to my satisfaction that he is merely making a lot of it up, and in fact probably didn't really test them all at all. Otherwise, he must be a really bored man and needs to get out of the house instead of spending more than 6000 hours "testing" metal detectors. Get a girlfriend dude, or a job, but get out of the house!

At 40 hours a week for "testing" it would take him 150 weeks or 250 days working NIGHT AND DAY to do all those tests and to learn those machines! Get real! NOBODY is stupid enough to think he did THAT! Again though, he admitted to just basically turning them on and trying them, but that would take him more than 15 minutes each which equals 1500 hours just to test them without even knowing how they really work or what their potential is. I'm not buying it though.

I think the guy is a fake and I told him so. If he doesn't like it, that's tough. People like that just about make me puke. I can't stand a liar, and think he is one. He and others like him really upset me, and to the max.

You know its funny you posted this another forum member here told me this chart.
We were out detecting he starts telling me " Hey your machine (my TROY X5) came out with flying colors"
Then he pms me the chart a day or so later and he says
" I don't get it the chart has been all rearranged "

 

[lucky1777]

I think most of these charts of vids, I see on line are biased. I also believe any of the top end detectors will perform close to each other, if the user knows how to properly operate their machine. With that being said, I didn't notice where he tested the MXT. The only reason I could come up with is that it kicked all the Minelabs butts.

 

[Michigan Badger]

I think the guy is a fake and I told him so. If he doesn't like it, that's tough. People like that just about make me puke. I can't stand a liar, and think he is one. He and others like him really upset me, and to the max.

I wrote to him too back when he first published his charts. In fact at that time I was really ticked at him and accused him of being Minelab biased.

About 6 months later I cooled down and started to do some checking. I was surprised how my testings produced the same results or very close to the same.

See, according to what I got from his emails, he set all the machines up at their stable settings recommended by the manufactures. He set them where he would set them if he were using them himself out in the field.

Then he buried his test coins at set depths and tried the various machines to see how they would perform.

After carefully reading his site several times again and writing to him I became convinced that I had initially overreacted. I followed his suggestion closely and so far I'm finding very close to what he found.

Like he says himself. many of these machines can do much better than the charts show if adjusted to run at maximum sensitivity and used by an experienced detectorists. See, this wasn't the point of the charts. The charts were meant to show how these machines would perform if setup very modestly (following learner settings) for each machine.

Well, maybe I misunderstood him? But this is the way I take his chart postings now. And like I wrote, I'm so far finding results very close to what he found.

I think he has provided a great service if one carefully reads what he has written at his site and uses these same procedures.

Badger

 

[Michigan Badger]

Badger
So far "I like Apple juice" is ahead in your poll.

George

Ya, I voted Apple Juice myself.

 

[Ant]

From my experience I would say that there are too many variables to give a solid answer. I can gain depth by just mixing the upper level soil matrix with my foot. Has anyone ever noticed that?

 

[EasyMoney]

Yes EDDE, he re-arranged them shortly after I wrote to him too. He seems to be learning as he goes... And he really got upset when I confronted him on it. I think he just makes it all up.

That's exactly my point though, DON'T publish something that you THINK is right or want to use to push your product. Most people see right through that maze. . If you can't prove it or if you are only turning on the machines and calling it good, then the report is not worth a single piece of toilet paper in a cathouse.

I have a Compass XP Pro here that gets nearly 7 inches in his type soil and another one that gets almost 2 inches better. He claims 5 inches. Why even mention it if it's that far off?

If anyone wants to see how deep detectors REALLY go then check out the Nexus test in GB, the same place where he is supposed to have tested them all. NOBODY, I mean NOBODY was able to find a dime-sized coin at 10 inches in that well-documented undisturbed test ground report , even with a super-sized aftermarket coil, EXCEPT that the Nexus almost found it. Yes, that's right, the Nexus was the only one that even got close to finding the thing and it had it's 9 inch coil on it. Now if a Nexus has a hard time finding one, then a $&^%#$&*& piece of crap Minelab won't find it, that's for sure. The ONLY other one that even got close to the Nexus was a European verion Tejon with it's biggest coil.

Another clue as to his facade is that he claims a "halo" effect on coins. And anybody with any brains knows that that is a bunch of hogwash. Only iron and iron oxides and steel create halo effects. I think the guy should take the chart off the net and I've told him so too.

Additionally, since he claims that he didn't set them (all) up properly and used only factory settings at best, then what wonders would he be finding with the Minelabs anyway? 24 inches instead of 14 inches? He did that with many others didn't he, giving them only 5 inches instead of the 7 or 8 that they should have gotten?

If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck,,, etc...

It's a duck.

 

[Drudge]

Badger
So far "I like Apple juice" is ahead in your poll.

George

Ya, I voted Apple Juice myself.

Yep me too. I'd need an average done with more of the same detectors and by other independent testers.

 

[Willy]

Personally, I think that if you were to hang him up by his feet and let all the $h!t drain outta him, you'd grow yourself some prizewinning punkins come next Halloween. ..Willy.

 

[Michigan Badger]

Personally, I think that if you were to hang him up by his feet and let all the $h!t drain outta him, you'd grow yourself some prizewinning punkins come next Halloween. ..Willy.

So, is it safe to say you don't agree with his charts

 

[EasyMoney]

Thats funny Badger

Man this Banquet dinner sure is good. Maybe I'll grab another one. Only 88 cents