bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,479
- 8,946
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
While metal detectors have come a long way they'll never be able to control the ever-changing elements and conditions. Even when we have our machines finely tuned we have no control over the shape, size, conductivity, density, or the position of those targets. In our hands we have a tool that is designed to consistently perform, yet in the ground we have a wide assortment of frequently inconsistent targets and conditions.
Coins are perhaps the most consistent targets we can pursue because each denomination is consistent in size and its general makeup. Yet if we angle this target in the ground, perhaps even stand it on end, or change its depth, or any combination of these, then we can create a lot of inconsistent returns which can result in vastly different target ID information. And targets such as jewelry where there is little consistency at all, well, even gold and silver jewelry can show up just about anywhere on the non-ferrous scale.
I like my Equinox 800 but I'm also painfully aware that all of that notching out "IS" costing me some good targets. But at my age and considering some of the locations that I detect, well, sometimes you just have to live with whatever the situation allows.
Given all of the above let's examine the penny range on our machines. Yesterday I passed over at least 50 targets in the penny range, this same range also being home to a wide variety of gold and silver jewelry items as pennies will frequently appear in the 18 to 25 range on my Equinox. This same thing can be said of the nickel range, or that 12-13 range on my Equinox which I don't have notched out but use my own discretion on which ones I choose to dig. Twenty years ago I would have dug all of these targets and no doubt I would have recovered more good targets because I did. But today's advanced machines just make it too easy to avoid all of the pull-tabs, bottle caps, etc., and so I/we just avoid digging them.
Yesterday I stood over a target that was a solid 12 on my machine until I moved 90 degrees of the target and then it started to cut in and out on me. The reason it was cutting in and out is because I had 11 & 14 notched out and once I changed my sweep angle the target wanted to start bouncing into that 11 and 14 range and so I didn't dig it. Most likely it was one of those square pull-tabs, maybe broken in half, bent, or perhaps it was sitting in the ground at a sharp angle. On the other hand, however, it could have just as easily been a gold ring sitting in the ground at an odd angle. Whatever the case I chose to avoid digging it even though it never dipped into a negative return when I switched to all metal and it had that classic double beep so frequently associated with rings. Did I miss a good target? Probably not, but perhaps, maybe so. In any event twenty years ago I would have dug that target.
Confidence is important but today's machines can easily evoke too much confidence and that sense of confidence can easily cost us a lot of good targets when we start taking the advanced performance of these machines for granted. Had I been in the water with my long-handled scoop I would have dug all of the above targets because it's so much simpler and easier to do, having learned the hard way long ago that even today's machines can't produce consistent performance and target ID on inconsistent targets. Just isn't going to happen because it can't. Trust? Perhaps the biggest mistake we often make is placing too much trust in what our advanced machines are telling us.
While we may see these new machines as perfect tools the target signatures of the items we pursue are often far from perfect and this is where the process should always be suspect, because it is. So even if your machine is accurate 70% of the time, which would be really good, that still leaves 30% room for error in the classifying of targets and that missed 30% can really start to add up. I know I passed on some good targets yesterday, no doubt about it. Just how good?
Coins are perhaps the most consistent targets we can pursue because each denomination is consistent in size and its general makeup. Yet if we angle this target in the ground, perhaps even stand it on end, or change its depth, or any combination of these, then we can create a lot of inconsistent returns which can result in vastly different target ID information. And targets such as jewelry where there is little consistency at all, well, even gold and silver jewelry can show up just about anywhere on the non-ferrous scale.
I like my Equinox 800 but I'm also painfully aware that all of that notching out "IS" costing me some good targets. But at my age and considering some of the locations that I detect, well, sometimes you just have to live with whatever the situation allows.
Given all of the above let's examine the penny range on our machines. Yesterday I passed over at least 50 targets in the penny range, this same range also being home to a wide variety of gold and silver jewelry items as pennies will frequently appear in the 18 to 25 range on my Equinox. This same thing can be said of the nickel range, or that 12-13 range on my Equinox which I don't have notched out but use my own discretion on which ones I choose to dig. Twenty years ago I would have dug all of these targets and no doubt I would have recovered more good targets because I did. But today's advanced machines just make it too easy to avoid all of the pull-tabs, bottle caps, etc., and so I/we just avoid digging them.
Yesterday I stood over a target that was a solid 12 on my machine until I moved 90 degrees of the target and then it started to cut in and out on me. The reason it was cutting in and out is because I had 11 & 14 notched out and once I changed my sweep angle the target wanted to start bouncing into that 11 and 14 range and so I didn't dig it. Most likely it was one of those square pull-tabs, maybe broken in half, bent, or perhaps it was sitting in the ground at a sharp angle. On the other hand, however, it could have just as easily been a gold ring sitting in the ground at an odd angle. Whatever the case I chose to avoid digging it even though it never dipped into a negative return when I switched to all metal and it had that classic double beep so frequently associated with rings. Did I miss a good target? Probably not, but perhaps, maybe so. In any event twenty years ago I would have dug that target.
Confidence is important but today's machines can easily evoke too much confidence and that sense of confidence can easily cost us a lot of good targets when we start taking the advanced performance of these machines for granted. Had I been in the water with my long-handled scoop I would have dug all of the above targets because it's so much simpler and easier to do, having learned the hard way long ago that even today's machines can't produce consistent performance and target ID on inconsistent targets. Just isn't going to happen because it can't. Trust? Perhaps the biggest mistake we often make is placing too much trust in what our advanced machines are telling us.
While we may see these new machines as perfect tools the target signatures of the items we pursue are often far from perfect and this is where the process should always be suspect, because it is. So even if your machine is accurate 70% of the time, which would be really good, that still leaves 30% room for error in the classifying of targets and that missed 30% can really start to add up. I know I passed on some good targets yesterday, no doubt about it. Just how good?
Amazon Forum Fav 👍
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
10
