What do you think of this article (re: iron masking)?

TrpnBils

Hero Member
Jan 2, 2005
870
1,234
Western PA
🥇 Banner finds
1
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
1
Detector(s) used
CTX 3030
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
Can a standard office staple completely mask a silver dime?

I found this in another forum and a quick read is kind of discouraging, but I find myself wondering how accurate it is. Several members there said they tried the same test and were able to see right through the offending staple.

What do you all think? FYI - this article was written in 2009 I believe so it's a bit dated.

Beneath The Mask ? NASA Tom ? Detector Stuff
 

Upvote 0

Jason in Enid

Gold Member
Oct 10, 2009
9,593
9,229
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I don't believe it entirely. Sure iron masking exists, but I have dug too many targets next to, under, and in contact with iron in the ground to believe that a staple is going to block the signal of the coin.
 

Charlie P. (NY)

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2006
13,004
17,108
South Central Upstate NY in the foothills of the h
Detector(s) used
Minelab Musketeer Advantage Pro w/8" & 10" DD coils/Fisher F75se(Upgraded to LTD2) w/11" DD, 6.5" concentric & 9.5" NEL Sharpshooter DD coils/Sunray FX-1 Probe & F-Point/Black Widows/Rattler headphone
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
In my test garden I have nails over and beside deeper coins. From what I found there I no longer notch or use much more than 6/99 for discrimination. A coin "peeking" beside the iron gives a signal that was lost if I use higher discrimination. I do believe many detectors null out if iron is closer to the coil than a coin and you never "see" it.
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
that article/link seems to imply that it's an "all or nothing proposition". I agree with Charlie and Jason: There's a never-ending middle-ground, where there's degrees of masking. A single staple (for pete's sake), will not eliminate a silver dime. Yes the signals (TIDs and depths) start to wain as depths and sizes of iron increase. But no, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
 

Davers

Gold Member
Jan 8, 2013
8,127
7,147
N.of , I-285...GA
Detector(s) used
Whites Spc xlt & Tesoro Tejon- Now back ...Fisher 1266-X. TRX Pointer. New .Teknetics G2 + . New AT Pro .
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I have found the staple & the Dime thing to be a Myth.
Then again Several Variables Come into play when it come to "Masking" IMO

Davers
 

cudamark

Gold Member
Top Banner Poster
Mar 16, 2011
13,227
14,557
San Diego
🥇 Banner finds
1
🏆 Honorable Mentions:
3
Detector(s) used
XP Deus 2, Equinox 800/900, Fisher Impulse AQ, E-Trac, 3 Excal 1000's, White's TM808, VibraProbe, 15" NEL Attack, Mi6, Steath 920ix and 720i scoops, TRX, etc....
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
A lot will also depend on the type of detector you have. I see you list an E-trac as your machine. If you run it in two tone ferrous and work it real slow, you will have the best chance in avoiding iron masking. Naturally, a small coil will help quite a bit too in separating out the targets.
 

gunsil

Silver Member
Dec 27, 2012
3,863
6,204
lower hudson valley, N.Y.
Detector(s) used
safari, ATPro, infinium, old Garrett BFO, Excal, Nox 800
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
That article was written almost 15 years ago, and there have been advancements in machines since that time. I think a lot of modern machines will see through the mask better than the machine used back then although the same basic machine is still used and loved by some. I gotta agree with Jason, Tom, Davers, and Charlie here.
 

jeweler21

Full Member
Mar 8, 2013
166
158
San Angelo, Tx
Detector(s) used
Minelab Explorer SE, Garrett AT pro, Teknetics T2, Garrett GTAX 500, A.H. Electronics Super Pro 5, Fisher VLF 555 D/B, Garrett AT Pin Pointer
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
That article was written almost 15 years ago, and there have been advancements in machines since that time. I think a lot of modern machines will see through the mask better than the machine used back then although the same basic machine is still used and loved by some. I gotta agree with Jason, Tom, Davers, and Charlie here.

I keep reading of the great improvements in technology? Everyone seems to be of the opinion that early years of metal detecting was like a caveman with a pointed stick. I assure you this was not the case. I have a forty + year old A. H. Electronics machine that its discriminating will equal or surpass any machine produced today. The problem was retaining good depth while discriminating (maximum depth in discrimination, about three or four inches). I, also, have a Fisher VLF 555 D/B that will attain as much depth as just about anything produced today (15" on a quarter). The difference is in the combination of depth and identification. And a person with enough experience learns the chances of a signal being of value and they become the discrimination themselves. I love the AT Pro simply because of its ability to cover a lot of territory fast while giving the operator a good idea of the signals composition without a lot of thought making for an enjoyable outing without much work and still retaining good depth, but don't put down old technology, its from whence the new technology was developed.

Good Luck & HH

PS,
I sold A.H. Electronics detectors in the 1970's and you can take a dime, clad or silver, and lay a pull tab on the ground and set the discrimination to completely cut it out move over six inches lay a pull tab on top the dime and you will receive only the signal of the dime. I have never used a discriminating detector that a staple would mask a coin.
 

Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top