Thoughts on White's TM 808

[Just_curious]

Hey everybody, I was poking around and doing some research on possible new detectors that I want. I have been fascinated with the thought of Caches/buried treasure, and stumbled upon the White's TM 808. It looks great! Now, it isn't your standard detector, but the thought of just holding it at your side and walking to grid out an area sounds/looks great. I have a few supposed lost treasure near me and wonder if it would be worth it. I mean, honestly, who would bury their treasure 12" or less. One thing I know for sure. If I wanted to find a legitimate treasure, and had one directly under my coil, I wouldn't be able to find it. I also wonder how the detector would work for finding gold veins/lode deposits.

Has anybody tried one of these or currently own one and able to comment/speak a little about it? I'd love to hear more about them besides the video's that White's released.

I have decided that I am going to sell my Minelab GM1000, White's XLT's, and probably my White's GMZ and White's GM2 along with the extras I've acquired to fund something different. I'd say that I would have enough to get a good nugget detector and a good coin detector. Now to figure out which ones I want (and then actually unload mine lol)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

I have experience with the TM 808. Besides what you've already read in their manual , and seen on their video, here's a few points I would add:

If you read about cache-hunting long enough on any forum, where the subject of 2-box versus standard detector gets debated, you will often find persons that point out that a standard machine, with a very large coil, can accomplish the same depth on larger objects as a 2-box can . Heck, and if you used a high-powered Minelab nugget machine, PROBABLY DEEPER. So the line-of-reasoning is: "Why get a 2-box then?".

for example: It's no secret that a standard machine (like if you put a WOT coil on them, etc...) could get a jar to several feet deep. And a microwave oven sized object to 5 ft. And a volkswagon to .... what ... 10+ ft. deep ? These are all depths that a TM 808 might boast of. So why get 2 different machines. And its arguably true that some high powered pulse nugget machines will go even deeper yet.

BUT THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. Not sure if the manual or video points this out (since it's a hunt characteristic, not an operation characteristic) : There is an inherent benefit of the TM 808 that it will not pick up anything smaller than a soda can. So it therefore becomes the "perfect discriminator" against all those pesky individual nails, single coins, foil, tabs, etc.... You ONLY hear larger targets. This saves LOTS of time when your sole objective is the larger targets.

The proponents will then say that the user of a standard machine can simply use his ear to mentally reject/pass all the "small stuff". But trust me: You will forever-&-a-day be digging a bunch "just to be sure". And let's be honest: A jar at 2 ft. , although you could hear it on a standard machine, might mimic a smaller target at 8" deep. Hence you're spending all day trying to discern large vs small, deep vs shallow. Whereas the TM808 only finds objects the size of a soda can or larger.

If you super tuned the TM 808, and held it close to the ground, you can actually find objects as small as dominos or silver dollars. So, when I was using one in a junky farm yard, I actually had to hold it higher so as NOT to have "as much sensitivity".

So ... ironically .... "more sensitivity" is not always better, when it comes to 2-box machines. It's an endless curve of objectives. If they try to make it "more sensitive to find the bigger stuff deeper", then you risk it ... likewise, starting to become 'sensitive enough' to also find small stuff shallow. Doh!

.... I have been fascinated with the thought of Caches/buried treasure,....

also be aware, that treasure stories are a "dime-a-dozen". Too much "legend" and "ghost story" type stuff. Ie.: telephone game gone awry. Be critical of any story you hear, and delve back into their sources. If it turns out it's a "he said she said" type thing, or something someone read in a treasure magazine, then I don't put any stock into those.

 

[Just_curious]

Honestly, the only treasure legends that I consider credible are the ones that the government purchased up the land lol. And what you said about the small targets being undetected is exactly what I was thinking! I do have a magnum Forcefield Depth Plus 15" coil, but I'm not sure how it would fair. Having only found single coins and junk, and never a cache, idk how my detector would work on a mason jar filled with coins at 2-3 feet deep honestly. Then, I've always wondered "what if the cache is in an iron pot? What will my detector register that as". Or "what if the cache is large enough to make my detector think that it's junk?" Maybe someday I will find a cache. Really, that's what I want to learn. If I could find a treasure, that would be awesome, but the odds are stacked against you. Finding an old coin cache is much more probable. I have been trying to find "how to" links on how to cache hunt, but haven't found much. I would think that there would be more to it than swinging a metal detector

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using TreasureNet.com mobile app

 

[beep1971]

I use a Signum MFD, it's an excellent deep coin machine but it also doubles as a hoard finder. It works similar to the TM 8o8 in that it misses small iron etc on the surface and hits the big stuff deep, here's a vid


But what you've got to remember is that most detectors see a bag of coins as separate targets, and not a big block target.
So there fine at finding big items, but if your hoping to find a pile of deep silver coins, you got to hope they've been buried in a tin or aluminium box.

 

[cudamark]

I agree with Tom's assessment and will also add that you can't use a TM808 in many urban areas or anywhere that has huge metal close by. By this, I mean cars, metal sheds, underground tanks, etc. You get within 20-30 feet feet of them and the machine squawks something awful. It's an excellent machine to compliment a standard detector. Once you get a target reading on the TM808, you need a standard detector to do the final search once you start excavating. The TM808 isn't good at determining the depth of an object. Some models will detect voids, caves, mines, etc. Mineral veins....not so much, unless they're really concentrated with metal ore. As for your question as to why someone would only bury something a foot deep or less......the question should be the other way around......why would you bury it deeper? Once it's underground, what difference does it make how deep it is as far as hiding the item. Once you get a foot or two deep, some ground can get really hard to dig. If you wanted to hide something (especially quickly) you would want to get it underground fast. Once you hit that hard ground, your idea about burying it 6 feet down or more will go out the window in an instant.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....As for your question as to why someone would only bury something a foot deep or less......the question should be the other way around......why would you bury it deeper? Once it's underground, what difference does it make how deep it is as far as hiding the item.....

This is a breath of fresh air. And whenever you hear of a treasure that the seeker says is "3 to 6 meters deep" (6 to 9 ft), they are IMMEDIATELY suspect of being hogwash stories.

You're right: if the objective is to hide it, what the heck more "hidden" is it, at 1 ft. versus 6 or 9 ft ? As long as the top is covered and fluffed up, it's EQUALLY hidden. And go figure: The person had to have been thinking of coming back to recover it some day, so ... why make it any harder on himself ?

There is a certain pocket cove beach near me, where bedrock is between 3 ft. to 6 ft. deep. And we have often gone there to shovel down to bedrock, to hunt for old coins. And BELIEVE ME : To dig a 6 ft. deep hole in the sand (which is EASIER to dig than soil) is a CHORE ! It takes 2 of us, tag-teaming it, the better part of an hour. Because for every 1 ft. across of bottom space at 6 ft. deep, the top needs to be exponentially larger. Like an ice-cream cone shaped hole. Lest the sides merely cave in as you dig.

Another scenario to compare the amount of effort needed: Ask any bottle digger what kind of time & muscle it takes to dig 6 ft. deep pit.

 

[Just_curious]

From the looks of things, it seems like the TM808 is good to determine depth. You circle the object, and kind of "box it off" as you go so you trace the shape. Then with what you traced, find the center and mark it. Now walk away from the area, and then walk towards the center mark until you get the first sound. The distance between the center of the object and the center of the coil is how deep down it is. Obviously it would be an estimate, but a close one. Kind of just triangulating the object in the ground

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using TreasureNet.com mobile app

 

[cudamark]

The size of the target, it's angle in the ground, it's shape, mineralization, and the angle of the search coil(s) will all affect the perceived depth.