question about gold coins

[Gunnar]

friend of mine is from morocco and he told me that his great great grandfather used to bury his income at a certain point in the forest on his way home from work he used to have a transporting company and because he feared being robbed he used to stop at a certain point and hide the coins where he hid them is a mistery but the area isnt so big but there is allot of junk so he has been wondering if detectors can be set to find gold only but ignore the bottle caps and other junk he thinks he couldn't have buried them very deep.
so any advice on how it would be best to find them coins would be greatly appreciated
thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Mackaydon]

Welcome to Treasure Net !!
You say the area "isn't big". With that in mind, I'd dig everything, taking as much time as it takes to cover all the area--slowly.
Many other 'goodies' may be there in addition to ggg's treasure since people have apparently been in that specific area for a 100 years.
Don.......

 

[TerryC]

You can set a detector up for ALMOST gold only. Use some lead shot to set disc to just lead. Gold will also be in that range. You are STILL going to dig trash but will dig less. But as Macky says above, Dig all. TTC

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Some gold coins read low on the scale (like $1's and $2.50's), and others read mid range (a $5 reads at about square tab). And others read fairly high ($10's read at about low zinc, and $20's read at about penny!). Not sure of Moroccon equivalents in size to those, but ..... just to correct the misconception that "gold coins read low" is not an accurate statement. Size plays into the TID formula.

And if your friend's great great grandfather burried multiple coins (or a jar or whatever), then you can kiss TIDs guessing goodbye. Because of course, when you get a handful of coins together, the TIDs skews, and no longer resembles what an individual coin can read.

Good luck. Also, let me forewarn you: Buried treasure stories are a dime a dozen. But .... who knows?

friend of mine is from morocco and he told me that his great great grandfather used to bury his income at a certain point in the forest on his way home from work he used to have a transporting company and because he feared being robbed he used to stop at a certain point and hide the coins where he hid them is a mistery but the area isnt so big but there is allot of junk so he has been wondering if detectors can be set to find gold only but ignore the bottle caps and other junk he thinks he couldn't have buried them very deep.
so any advice on how it would be best to find them coins would be greatly appreciated
thanks

 

[TerryC]

There is truth in those words, Tom_in_CA. Tnx. TTC

 

[Gunnar]

i doubt his storie his family is already wealthy from that company today the company took care of all transport from the ships to surrounding towns and the old man used to bury coins in more than one place they have already found some in the ruins of the old house i think this was about 50 years ago but this location has allot of junk in the area and its hard to do any digging there cause of roots.

he has told me that he will invite me to come over if i have some way of finding the coins but i have no experience in metal detecting so what would be the best equipment for the job?

 

[Mackaydon]

If you go, I suggest you first get in writing an Agreement as to:
1. What is your share?
2. Who will appraise the finds?
3. How will the finds be divided?
No doubt there must be online sample Agreements that cover these and other aspects of a Search and Recovery project.
Don...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

so what would be the best equipment for the job?

It would depend on whether you anticipate singular coins, or multiple coins. (ie.: "caches"). And by "caches", how big?

a) If buried one at a time (singular coin finds), then any coin machine would work (take your pick, there's millions of them and the chevy/ford debates are endless)

b) If buried a handful/few at a time (such that they would resemble a cosmetic compact sized container), then you're going to need a standard coin/jewelry type machine as well. However, ironically, a mid or starter level (read "cheapie") machine may actually excell here. Because "ultra sensitivity" is not the goal in such situations. In fact, it's an impediment, since you'll be "bothered" by all the pesky sounds of individual items like solo coins, tabs, foil, etc... that a "sensitive machine" would pick up at greater depths.

c) if buried in jar/can-sized quantities at a time, get a 2-box unit. They will be unbothered by any small items (anything smaller than your fist) at ANY depths and ALL times.

So it still just depends. And again I say to you: Treasure legends are a "dime-a-dozen". And .... just like your story, relies on "he said she said 50 yrs. ago" type stuff. But in each story, the teller is convinced it's "iron clad". Why? because someone told them, who knew a person, that knew a person, who knew a person, who..... was an "eye-witness".

 

[Gunnar]

thanks Tom your answer is fantastic
i think its definitively a jar thing or a bundle probably the size of a fist or more
can you point me out some detectors that would be usefull in this case?
i need a solution for this metal detecting stuff im so lost in this "ground treasure hunting" as i usually work with sidecan sonar multibeams and ROV so when it comes to finding a DRY treasure im pretty much lost

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

No, I don't have any specific recommendation of one particular 2-box unit, over another. Just make sure that whatever you get will get items down to fist sized. To mimic this: take an aluminum can, and stand it up. Now crush it with your foot straight down (as opposed to crushed sideways, which gives a bigger target-surface). Then test the machine to make sure that a target this sized still gives a signal. Because some of the older 2-box units might have needed a jar-sized target or bigger, before they'd register. And you can't be certain that your particular story has any particular sized container (other than no smaller than fist sized, for arguments sakes).

But you DON'T want it any more sensitive than that though. Lest you be perpetually bothered with digging small stuff. And if you are really convinced that something is there (caches of gold coins), than this is the preferred means. Because even though a standard machine can ALSO easily pick up can and jar sized items, yet you will find yourself perpetually bogged down with the little stuff. And even if you tried to use your ears to "pass small stuff", yet you'll perpetually be digging things "just to be sure", thus wasting lots of time. The 2-box units simply don't see nails, individual coins, tabs, etc..... Yet will easily get a "beep" off the larger target underneath a veritable carpet of such items.

Whites has some 2-box units that fill all these criterias.

thanks Tom your answer is fantastic
i think its definitively a jar thing or a bundle probably the size of a fist or more
can you point me out some detectors that would be usefull in this case?
i need a solution for this metal detecting stuff im so lost in this "ground treasure hunting" as i usually work with sidecan sonar multibeams and ROV so when it comes to finding a DRY treasure im pretty much lost

 

[woof!]

Gunnar, the cache may not even be there, either because the story in its present form has its facts wrong (even though it may have had its origin in a true story), or because someone already retrieved the cache.

Supposing however that the story is true and the cache is still there, I'm guessing that the cache is not very deep because it was used like piggy bank. Make a quick deposit without anyone seeing you.

Two-box locators come in two kinds: high frequency units without synchronous phase ground balancing (as are used in the utility locating industry), and VLF units that are basically a VLF metal detector with the searchcoil being split into separate (and large) transmit and receive coils. Will either kind detect a shallow cache the size of your fist? It all depends on ground conditions, your skill, the presence or absence of electrical interference, or the abundance of other metal targets (including small ones). You should be aware that the units of both types that are presently on the market have been around for a long time and have not benefited from the kind of technological advancement that has occurred with regular VLF metal detectors.

Therefore my recommendation would be as follows:

1. A modern high-performance metal detector. I'd say a Technetics T2-SE since that's what I'm familiar with, but there are others. I'm sure a few people will post recommending other brands and models.

2. It should be one with slow response, either selectable or "that's just how it is". The T2-SE has two slow modes, "boost mode" and "cache mode". HOWEVER: note that in principle you can search in a "non-motion" (often called "static" or "pinpoint") mode. But, static mode is subject to drift, and if it drifts below audio threshold you can be losing a lot of sensitivity and you don't even know it. You have to frequently press the "retune" button or perform some similar maneuver to restore the proper audio threshold level. ........I'm not saying "don't search in static mode", but you do have to understand its advantages and limitations. Many experienced detectorists would use static mode in a situation like this. Also, using static mode broadens your choice of metal detectors since you're no longer limited to ones which have slow response either standard or selectable: for example you could get a regular T2 and save a few dollars on the price tag.

3. Search in all metals (not discrimination) mode. The cache might be in a glass jar or in a steel can, making discrimination irrelevant. Besides which all metals mode "goes deeper" than discrimination mode.

4. Use a large searchcoil. In the case of the T2-SE, the standard 11 inch elliptical will probably be large enough, but larger will be even better. There's a factory 15 inch coil available, and there are also aftermarket accessory coils that have reasonably good reputations although I can't personally make a specific recommendation on the aftermarket coils.

5. Search by sweeping the searchcoil lifted away from the soil surface about 8 inches (20 cm). This will reduce noise from small surface objects as well as minimize the influence of soil mineralization.

6. You'll be detecting small targets as well as large. However after you've dug a few, you'll learn the difference in the sound between a small surface target and a large and possibly deeper target. With your ear as the "discriminator" you can ignore small surface trash. You will however be collecting cans both aluminum and steel, because those are about the size of your cache and your cache may be nearly on the surface.

The foregoing comments are based on technical knowledge but very little field experience. I invite people who have done actual cache locating this way to comment on it.

--Dave J.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dave, you say:

" You'll be detecting small targets as well as large. However after you've dug a few, you'll learn the difference in the sound between a small surface target and a large and possibly deeper target. With your ear as the "discriminator" you can ignore small surface trash."

It's good that you say a standard coin machine will still be "detecting small targets". Because yeah, that's the problem if a person's *only* goal is to find a cache (which is said to be fist-sized or larger). And your solution to the problem of advising that a person can train their ears to pass the small stuff, is easier said, than done! Because constant nagging doubts will have you checking "to be sure". And also multiple small targets closeby together can easily fool you into thinking a single target is big.

I too took off cache hunting (Mexico in my case, back in the mid 1990s) and mulled over adding a 2-box machine to my arsenal for that trip. And I too, like yourself, figured "I can train my ears, and simply ignore small targets". So we only took our standard machines and simply larger coils. No matter HOW much we tried, it simply wasn't that easy to "ignore small things". Some floors of old adobes (250 yr. old homes) were simply a solid signal (comprised of small stuff, small iron, foil, whatzits, etc...). So there was simply no judging "small" verses "large", to begin with.

So for someone who is distinctly and only aiming for a cache, and is convinced it's fist sized or larger, I am of the opinion that standard machine will REALLY slow that down.

 

[woof!]

Tom, my point was that a good non-2-box will almost certainly have the capability to find that particular cache (which may be as small as fist-sized), whereas a 2-box of any kind may walk right over it and not see it. And yes, you'll be digging a lot of trash, especially since this particular cache may sound about like a can no matter what kind of machine you're using.

But, you also have a point that people vary in their ability to learn the sounds of different size and depth targets. When I first started beeping, it was on a beach where it was easy to dig, and within half an hour I wasn't digging cans any more. Nobody taught me, I just figured it out. But I also see posts by people who've been coinshooting for a year and they're asking how to stop digging cans. I suppose that all it would take is for someone to show them how to tell the difference, and in 5 minutes they'd "get it". But if nobody shows you how, you might not get it figured out on your own.

* * * * * A ZANS FOR CANS * * * * *

Coin versus can.

A shallow coin has a strong, crisp signal. A deep coin has a weak, broad signal unless it's at the fringe of detectability in which case the signal is very weak and often not very repeatable and may be a little narrower depending on the machine and the field circumstances. So with a couple sweeps over a coin, you can guess by the sound (or perhaps I should say the "feel") whether it's shallow, medium, or deep.

There's another trick. As you sweep back and forth over the coin, slowly loft the searchcoil. The signal will get weaker and finally disappear. Just a couple inches in height will make a big difference in the sound/feel. With practice, you can learn to tell the depth of a coin with a fair degree of accuracy.

When you know what coins sound/feel like, cans aren't like that. If it's less than 2 inches deep, it'll probably overload the machine. If it's 6 inches deep it'll be as loud as a shallow coin, but the signal will be much broader. And as you lift the searchcoil, you'll lift and lift and lift and the signal won't go away until you're a lot higher than with a 6 inch deep coin. With a can, a couple inches difference in height won't make nearly the difference in loudness that it does with a coin.

Also, if the can is still uncrushed (a beer cache!) or if it's steel, at a given depth the signal will be more broad and "muddy" than with a flattened aluminum can.

Dr. Seuss was right, there is a zans for cans, and there it is.

--Dave J.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dave, your example of the beach is a "gimmee". Of course anyone can learn the size difference between a coin-sized target and a can (despite any depth difference even!) in 30 minutes or less. Granted. But it is a far different show when you're in ruins where the floor is a non-stop signal.

And sure, any coin-machine is usually equally capable of finding caches, all day long. Maybe not as deep as a 2-box unit can, but as you've said already, they're not necessarily deep! (despite the common misconception that all caches are, by necessity, deep).

As for a 2-box unit "walking over the fist sized target", well then that merely becomes a case of the target being too small for the 2-box unit in question. Ie.: the wrong machine for the job. Which is why I suggested he test this very ability before he starts, by flattening a can (skinny-way up), to make sure that this size target still gives a signal. The one time I used a 2-box unit (which happened to be a Whites), we were able to find targets mimicking this size (albeit you had to be right over the target, whereas a full can or toaster sized object, is easier, granted). In fact, there are some 2-box units that are sensitive enough to pick up a single silver dollar, if you get the silver dollar in the "sweet spot", and it's face-flat, etc..... So if, as you are saying, there are 2-box machines that would miss that "fist-sized target", well then this is simply a case of needing to re-assess the chosen 2-box unit, not that a person should therefore go with a standard coin machine.

I have been at this for 35+ yrs, and I too can effortlessly call "big vs small" when targets are on/in individual basis (like your beach example and your "trick" thing, etc...), but no, this will not work in environments where you're dealing with carpets of small items all close together. You will be endlessly trying to second guess things.

 

[woof!]

Tom, I'm sure we can agree that there is no one metal detector setup that does everything well. And caches..... nothing does that well, the choices are among machines that do it poorly (that's why we're having this conversation).

In Gunnar's particular case, chances are if he's not digging cans, he's not digging the cache. Regardless of the machine setup. With a good modern metal detector (or for that matter even an old-fashioned 1266), he'll be digging the cans. With a 2-box, smaller stuff will be less of a problem but it may not detect the cache. It's easy enough to say "if it doesn't detect the cache, it was the wrong machine", but that goes for anything. Until someone can say which machine will detect the cache and will ignore the trash (and doubt anyone can say that), there are no good choices, only lousy ones.

He won't know what the field conditions are until he is actually on-site. It might be so trashy that a VLF (even a 2-box VLF) isn't usable and he'll be reduced to hoping a high frequency 2-box will find it. It might be clean enough that the zone in question can in fact be searched in a reasonable length of time and with minimal site disturbance using a regular metal detector, which has the advantage that a regular metal detector will almost certainly find the cache if it's there. If he can afford it, it might make sense to take several different kinds of equipment and once on the site, use whatever seems to do the job best.

Ah, all the stuff that people will do just for yellow metal!

--Dave J.

PS: since we're talking about caches here....... Purveyors of LRL's now and then like to brag that they just walk up to a site, point to the target, and go dig it, ain't that neat? As seen on TV (well, YouTube) even! But, when it comes to real situations or even hypothetical situations presented as representative of real situations, that's stuff they don't seem to know anything about! If you spent $10K on an LRL and it does nothing useful at all under any conditions, they just say it's all your fault, you just ain't got the knack.

Here's how to read that particular advertisement: Since the LRL is fakery, the purveyor is going to blame the user for its not working (i.e., no way to do a factory repair since there's nothing to fix). Therefore no treasure locating and recovery activity will happen, hence no need to have any knowledge of such matters.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Dave, I had to chuckle when I read you introducing LRL's into this topic. Because my host (a recent immigrant from rural/mountain mexico) who took me to Mexico in the mid 1990's, for multiple "sure fire stories", was suggesting we get some of those gadgets.

As we planned and packed for our trip, he came to me one day with a treasure magazine, with several advertisements for LRL's circled. He was quite ... uh "taken" by the convincing pictures in the advertisements, of guys posing next to their jars of coins, and claims of incredible distances/depths. He wanted us to take some of our budgetted money for this trip, and spend it on those devices! (afterall, how do you argue with testimonial pix of guys posed next to jars of coins they "found", eh? ) And I envisioned my hard-earned money flitting away on what appeared to be "snake oil", I was having a hard-time telling him of my doubts. Afterall he reasoned, they wouldn't let you advertise such claims in print, if it weren't true. So in his minds eye, it was ME who was going to be on the loosing end of the stick, if we didn't plunk down our hard-earned money on the device(s). It took some doing, but I finally dissuaded him from it. I guess it's a cultural thing, where he comes from ... that they have people with coat-hangers and such. And wow, how can you argue with making one of them space-age with electronic components and such??

As I researched the matter (to try to give my host a logical answer), I deduced some of the same things you're saying: If the device doesn't work for someone, then it's NEVER because the device simply doesn't work. It's always something like a) sun spots or solar flares that day. b) you need more practice. If you only practiced a month, then you need 2 months. If you practice 2 months, well then you need 4 months, and ... it never ends. c) There simply isn't a treasure in the spot you worked that day. d) the dry hole means someone already dug it, but the machine still senses the residue. e) some nefarious person nearby has a magnet in their pocket. f) How can you kill-joy the LRL for not finding a treasure, when afterall, standard detectors ALSO don't always find "treasure" on each outing either. Sheesk, what a double-standard. g) you simply don't have the "gift".

See how that works? It's vicious circular logic, that never ends. Never is there a simple double-blind test (because it would only mean the failure by a person, means that person "didn't have the gift"). There is always a water-tight alibi.

And as for the convincing pix of the persons posed next to the jars of gold coins they found, here's my answer to that: Let's assume the pix is not staged, and someone actually found those things. Then my answer would be that invariably, they researched a known lead ("my grandpa buried a jar of coins somewhere on this property...." or whatever). The LRL person takes out his wand and waves it around likely looking spots. Then pulls out his detector to "pinpoint", and presto, eventually finds something. Well DUH, if you detect around enough likely looking ruins (esp. where you already have a lead or suspect something), and dig enough holes while using your detector to "pinpoint", well duh, of COURSE you'll eventually come up with something. And then "presto", your LRL found it, eh?