Well ive put in a lot of hours now with the Nox in and near the salt water. I have one...... just one piece of what id call small gold. its an earring not a ring or a chain. The Nox finds gold so dont get me wrong ....... but im not finding real small or tiny gold. Seems im still just looking for rings as Tom says. To me in all honesty ive not found the Nox to be any better than the Xcal or CTX... maybe a VLF is a VLF when it comes to multi freq and salt water. There is a lot to like about the Nox as a beach machine..... but finding tiny/small gold in or near the salt water i dont believe in one of them. Ive found a good many nice pieces of gold to include 4 chains..... all heavy larger ones. Ive found more gold in the 18, 22, and couple of days ago even a 24K. Everything ive found the other MLs will find i believe. Dont get me wrong im not bashing the Nox...... im really enjoying it. But its not the small gold magnet i was hoping for..... just doesnt have the sensitivity. I could build the worlds largest foil ball thou lol. Anyone seen a tiny chain..... or a bunch of um? May well be a great raw gold machine....... and it has good depth in general on gold jewelry.

Dew

Dew--Have you tried working in G2? Finding this pretty interesting--lot of info to be elicited with the coil as well.
It actually has to be run with some disc to keep it off the small stuff.
cjc

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well ive put in a lot of hours now with the Nox in
> and near the salt water. I have one...... just o
> ne piece of what id call small gold. its an earri
> ng not a ring or a chain. The Nox finds gold so
> dont get me wrong ....... but im not finding real
> small or tiny gold. Seems im still just looking
> for rings as Tom says. To me in all honesty ive
> not found the Nox to be any better than the Xcal o
> r CTX... maybe a VLF is a VLF when it comes to mul
> ti freq and salt water. There is a lot to like a
> bout the Nox as a beach machine..... but finding t
> iny/small gold in or near the salt water i dont be
> lieve in one of them. Ive found a good many nice
> pieces of gold to include 4 chains..... all heavy
> larger ones. Ive found more gold in the 18, 22,
> and couple of days ago even a 24K. Everything i
> ve found the other MLs will find i believe. Dont
> get me wrong im not bashing the Nox...... im reall
> y enjoying it. But its not the small gold magnet
> i was hoping for..... just doesnt have the sensiti
> vity. I could build the worlds largest foil ball
> thou lol. Anyone seen a tiny chain..... or a bun
> ch of um? May well be a great raw gold machine...
> .... and it has good depth in general on gold jewe
> lry.
>
> Dew

Excellent post Dew. There is this deafening mantra of "better on [alloyed] gold" . Which generally seems to mean "better on low conductors". And the lower the conductor (the deeper at-which you can do it) the better. Eh ?

But reality comes to smack you in the face. At some point, yes, we all have to ask ourselves A) how important is it to get that earing stud or tinsel thin chain ? B ) what are the ratios of THOSE type objects, to objects with share their TID signature ? (tteeennnssy foil zits).

Contrast to even the SMALLEST of rings, that even the powerhouse CTX, Etrac, Exp, Sov, CZ, Xcal, etc... has no problems getting.

I am convinced that the ability to get "more gold" does not depend on a machine's ability to "get smaller/lower conductors" at "deeper depths". Instead, in most of our hunt environments, it's simply a function of lowering the disc. and digging the stuff we can ALREADY get ... no problem.

And/or picking better hunt environments/locations (eg. swim beaches after storms). And NOT trying to go to junky urban parks, and be a hero, digging low conductors till our arms fall off.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2018 01:57AM by Tom_in_CA.

cjc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dew--Have you tried working in G2? Finding this p
> retty interesting--lot of info to be elicited with
> the coil as well.
> It actually has to be run with some disc to keep i
> t off the small stuff.
> cjc


Unfortunately, the Gold modes won't work around wet salt. It would be great if they did.


I think if you want to get the small gold and thin chains at the beach, not only do you have to dig the single numbers but negative numbers as well. If you're not in all metal, you won't hear them. A tiny piece of gold a few inches deep can easily drop into the ferrous ID range when mixed with salt.

.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2018 04:32PM by Badger in NH.

I totally agree with your point Tom_in_CA.

If anyone is looking for those featherweight earing studs or teenie-weenie chains lower your discrimination, or better yet go to all metal, as you said, if you're willing to dredge through mountains of foil chaff.

Sometimes we have to simply pick a location where the effort/reward ratio is more in our favor.

I would agree. Great machine - light, inexpensive, and waterproof but no better than the excal, ctx, cz21...except being so much cheaper and lighter makes it a no brainer on the beach.

_________________________________

Nox600, CTX, CZ21, Excal II and White's DF with 920i stealthscoop...I live and hunt at the beach in Wilm NC

adamBomb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would agree. Great machine - light, inexpensive and waterproof but no better than the excal, ctx, cz21...




Did you test this theory?

I thought it had already been proven on Detector Comparisons and other videos that the EQX will pick up small gold in the wet sand that the CTX and Excal cannot.

Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> adamBomb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would agree. Great machine - light, inexpensiv
> e and waterproof but no better than the excal, ctx
> , cz21...
>
>
>
>
> Did you test this theory?
>
> I thought it had already been proven on Detector C
> omparisons and other videos that the EQX will pick
> up small gold in the wet sand that the CTX and Exc
> al cannot

I am on all of the forums and still waiting to see all of this small gold in the 'finds' section. Either there just isn't much small gold on the beach or we just aren't finding it. I have so many hours on this machine now and have yet to find gold or silver that wouldn't of been detected by the CTX/Excal/CZ21. In my air depth tests of multiple gold, silver, clad it was equal to these machines. When I start finding small gold on the beach that these machines won't pick up I will become a believer...until then I am waiting for the manta which I believe will really find it.

_________________________________

Nox600, CTX, CZ21, Excal II and White's DF with 920i stealthscoop...I live and hunt at the beach in Wilm NC

Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..... the EQX will pick
> up small gold in the wet sand that the CTX and Exc
> al cannot.

I don't think that's in dispute. No one is disputing that the Nox EQX isn't superior at micro-jewelry . Eg.: tinsel thin chains, earring studs, etc....

But I think it's a matter of "how important is that ?" About the only place I would think to employ such an ability, is in the wet beach after storm erosion has washed out (in theory) all the light stuff (tteeennnssy foil turds, etc...). Otherwise, in all other hunt locales, this magical ability of the Nox seems to be a hinderance, not a help.

Example: I tried it on some high-end tourist beach section near me. In a dry sand zone where I've pulled lots of silver coins and wheaties over the years (hard pan is as shallow as 8" to 1 or 2 ft in places, and it's above all high-water marks). I wanted to see how the Nox would do. And you're absolutely right: It has AWESOME ability to "ring the bells of notre dame" on teeensy stuff. I would have a fighting chance to get a tinsel thin chain or earring stud.

HOWEVER, the devil is in the details: After 30 minutes and umpteen ttteeennnnsssyy foil zits (and other such nondescript dot-sized flecks of who-knows-what), I got to where I began to subconsciously pass the lower #'s. Which, BTW, wasn't a problem. The TID is great, allowing the user to make-those-decisions, w/o loss of depth or ability on regular sized targets. But as for trying to be a hero & find micro-jewelry: It simply wasn't going to be worth it. To knock myself silly digging this stuff, for the eventual earring stud. And go figure: Unless there was a stone in something like that, the actual intrinsic weight is practically nothing for those targets.

And I can only imagine how much of a headache it would be , to go into the average park turf, and try to find micro-jewelry.

So the only place I could ever envision utilizing this ability, would be after beach erosion, where maybe the gold stays behind, the the foil zits are maybe washed out.

It does get a bit more depth on some of the gold the CTX will find in beach 1 in the wet sand. Its not as simple as just going to AM or lowering your disc it maybe if you are just looking for junk/silver jewelry....... but NOT gold. I believe beach 1 is the mode that if it was tweaked a bit more could really produce. Not sure if we could get much improvement in the water with either beach mode........ it kind of is what it is. Badger...... Ive tested a lot of gold too....... then got to thinking and Tom reminded me all the gold i tested was found by the other machines lol. We arent seeing all the bragged about small gold when it was introduced. I do hunt in AM but the salt setting still prevents the sensitivity to the smaller gold. Cant say ive got a lot of surprises digging iron signals.

Clive...... i do use the gold modes when hunting especially at volleyball courts on the beach and some in the dry sand.

Tom-CA......those machines you mentioned seem to be limited at about .3 grams on gold. Yes thats a pretty tiny ring. But here we are ...... hunting rings....why? Im one of the guys who would like the machine to have the ability to pick the small gold up........ that gives ME the option. Same with the new Fisher........ if you dont want to pick up small gold and mess with the negative side of that they ..... adjust it out. BUT..... hopefully it will have that ability. People hunt differently....... some dont like trash at all so they avoid it...... thank you guys for that lol.

To be honest, I haven't found any micro gold either but I haven't given up on it yet.

Up here foil isn't so much of a problem that I have to avoid digging it. Our summer beach season only just started a couple weeks ago so it's still early for us to get much in recent drops.

Winter/early spring is a different story. The problem then is tiny bits of corroded lobster trap parts, bullets and shell casings, shotgun shells, melted aluminum. It's everywhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2018 11:26PM by Badger in NH.

Micro gold to me ..... is smaller than im even talking about. Tom did a thread once about testing all the jewelry in a friends jewelry story. I think the biggest surprise was the percentage of womens ring to mens. Those are the ones we just arent getting.... small ladies rings and jewelry pieces. These rings arent down there like the much larger mens...... they sink to their equal weight...... we just arent able to see them and its not just a depth thing. I dig a lot of targets especially in the low digits in the water..... you just never know out there. However i think the real gold is in the oatmeal.... where a lot of minerals are plus the salt.

“Oatmeal” what’s That dew?

Other than that, I think some folks tend only to consider depth in terms of max depth on the deepest detectable target - like a big ring. As you mentioned, existing machines are depth limited on smaller gold even at reletavly shallow absolute depths. A broken ring which machine X can’t hear at 6” will be “meat on the table” for a machine with more quiet power - hearing targets with weak signal returns due to higher power and much lower internal noise.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2018 09:24PM by lytle78.

Oatmeal....... man Rick you are going to have to learn those beach terms lol. Its the wet sand right at the waters edge.... fluffy loose sand full of salt water. I do have to say the Nox likes broken rings better than the CTX. Got a 24K open ring the other day that the CTX didnt care much for.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does get a bit more depth on some of the gold t
> he CTX will find in beach 1 in the wet sand. Its
> not as simple as just going to AM or lowering your
> disc

Yes. Good point. While it's true that A) why knock yourself silly for micro-jewelry ? B ) The standard machines can hear small rings.

Yet: There is merit to the point that ... while standard machines and the Nox can EACH get dainty ladies rings, yet the Nox may *favor* mid to low conductors . So that ... .for example ... even though a quarter (high conductor) may be physically larger than a given dainty told ring, yet a standard machine may "favor" the quarter, instead of the low conductor.

So that ... at the end of the day. .... assuming all "fringe depth" targets, you would end up with a higher percentage of nickels. This is what pulse guys noticed in their coin counts, in the old days. So too might it be with the Nox: While either machine can "get" the gold ring, yet ...at the end of the day .... given "favoring", the Nox may have the edge in-that-it gets those low conductors with a bit more "umph". Hence less likely to miss and not hear them.

Hmmmm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2018 10:14PM by Tom_in_CA.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thi
> nk the biggest surprise was the percentage of wome
> ns ring to mens. Those are the ones we just aren
> t getting.... small ladies rings and jewelry piece
> s. These rings arent down there like the much la
> rger mens...... they sink to their equal weight...
> ... we just arent able to see them and its not jus
> t a depth thing.

And this is what i am waiting to find. Still not finding them with the nox. Look at the %s across forums - nearly always mens gold bands. Heck my only gold with the nox is a mens gold band though the fall is the best time to detect around me when storms roll through. But the % of mens to womens rings just boggles my mind because women wear way more rings than men. I mean my wife wears an engagement and wedding band.

_________________________________

Nox600, CTX, CZ21, Excal II and White's DF with 920i stealthscoop...I live and hunt at the beach in Wilm NC

What I hear you saying Tom is we are content with the size of gold we are finding? If thats true we dont need better detectors. Personally..... I want to know if its there I have the option of digging. ... right now we dont.

Much to discuss, but the Nox will make it’s mark in a season or two - by that time, new tools may appear.

Just remember Tom’s firm belief that the vast bulk of all the small and especially white gold is still out there - undetected by the previous generation of multifreq and PI detectors.

Perhaps the Nox or some future multifreaker will pry open Dave Jones’ Locker of all this stuff or perhaps a short pulse delay PI machine will do so.

If I were’t 71, I’d be calmer about the whole business, but I want it now!

And as far as “oatmeal” goes, according to my pal LE JAG, all detectors, even the best new PI prototypes he has used, do less well there than in more compact and solid sand.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

I've not had my Nox in the saltwater or at the salt beaches yet. I have no reason to not believe you guys though that are using them there and reporting the beach modes aren't hot on the small stuff. Maybe they will come up with a tweak for that, similar to how they did with the CTX with the sea water option. Some of the YouTube videos I watch of beach hunters seem to be finding lots of small stuff in the water and wet sand though; single stud ear rings and the like.

My problem in freshwater is what Tom in Ca said, and some one else mentioned too. There are so many junk micro targets in these areas that it makes it a chore to intentionally target those low reading numbers where that micro gold stuff is hiding. It is going to take a whole new mindset and way of recovering targets, especially in water. And it may boil down to a process of elimination and lots of elbow grease. My area was extremely popular for what I call rope chains...they were especially popular in the 2 and 3 mm size, and 20-22 inch long, 10k was most popular. I still have one actually...weighs just over 4 grams. That's not a lot of $ in scrap gold price but I sure wouldn't throw one in the junk bag. I'm almost certain that some of these are lurking at the freshwater swimming areas. Now that I have the phones I will be able to submerge my unit and try to get out to where the jewelry is normally lost and see what I can come up with. There have been lots of depositors in the water lately with the holiday and 90+ degree days.

We are helplessly mired without much hope of being able to detect these elusive gold stud and diamond stud earrings effectively at depth and with consistency.
In most conditions we are forced to use VLF in all metal mode or PI. Dig dig dig. We further compromise depth with special beach settings to offset the dreaded salt effects...ie lower sense etc etc.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't dig everything or you will miss that precious gold with the ice attached.

Most small gold items are going to be limited by the depth capabilities of the detector being used.
Best case scenario would most likely be at a max depth of around 2 to 3 inches or less for these small gold items and that is only only providing that someone has not stepped in that exact spot.
Next time your at the beach, in an area where many people congregate like the towel line where they lose these fine pieces of gold.... walk around that area and notice how deep you sink with each step.
Now imagine a diamond stud earring beneath your foot step and the hundreds of people doing the same, fat mothers trodding along with kids in tow... burying all the items you seek.
Notice all of the foot steps around you where you are currently standing, thousands of them.... whats down there ? What is down there that you're unable to detect ?
The sand drifts back over that same dry sand spot within hours.

The odds are stacked against us on the towel line. Much of what we find will be blind luck no matter your level of skill and the detector used. Fresh drops are true and rare blessings.
I prefer to hunt in the wet, even while the salt effects are more dramatic, the chances of finding something that has not been pounded deeper than my detector can locate is greater.
I admit that I do hunt the towel line but not to extent that I focus on the wet, the surf line and in the surf.
As I'm getting more time with the NOX learning its capabilities and its inabilities, so far I think this is a definite step in the right direction but not the proverbial magic bullet.

Up to my ____ in Pulltabs, Grant

adamBomb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dewcon4414 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thi
> > nk the biggest surprise was the percentage of wo
> me
> > ns ring to mens. Those are the ones we just ar
> en
> > t getting.... small ladies rings and jewelry pie
> ce
> > s. These rings arent down there like the much
> la
> > rger mens...... they sink to their equal weight.
> ..
> > ... we just arent able to see them and its not j
> us
> > t a depth thing.
>
> And this is what i am waiting to find. Still not f
> inding them with the nox. Look at the %s across fo
> rums - nearly always mens gold bands. Heck my only
> gold with the nox is a mens gold band though the f
> all is the best time to detect around me when stor
> ms roll through. But the % of mens to womens rings
> just boggles my mind because women wear way more r
> ings than men. I mean my wife wears an engagement
> and wedding band.

Good post. I have often wondered about this. I'm near the beach. And for the last 35+ yrs. have done tons of beach detecting here @ central coast CA. And you're right: The majority of gold rings found are men's rings. Not women's rings. And yes: Men's rings tend to be bigger/beefier sized. While Women's rings tend to be smaller, daintier, etc....

But I'm not convinced that it's due to our machine's tending to favor the larger items (less likely to miss). Because ... even a dainty women's ring, is still a slam dunk for most machines. Even power house machines not known for dainty targets (Xcal, CZ's, XLT's, etc...) can still pick up most women's rings with ease.

So I'm tempted to wonder if there's just a demographics thing going on, with rates-of-loss. Ie.: men tend to be more prone to fumble fingers (frolicking sports-action/movements, swimming, surfing, etc...) than women. Eh ?

I think the ability to hunt deeper micro jewelry is a good test, but the reality is that it's not much different then trying to wade through the endless myriads of pull-tabs and whatnot at the park before you get the prize.

They're certainly out there, but at the end of the day, is it worth the effort?

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I hear you saying Tom is we are content with
> the size of gold we are finding? If thats true we
> dont need better detectors. Personally..... I wa
> nt to know if its there I have the option of diggi
> ng. ... right now we dont.


Well, I hear what's you're saying. In the past, any machine that could find micro-jewelry, was typically a beach pulse machine. Which, as we all know, has issues with nails, bobby pins, staples, etc.... But the Nox passes the iron items JUST like our normal coin machines. Yet on the other hand, can get micro-jewelry, if a person so desires.

When I was experimenting with the Nox, and grew weary of ttteeennnsssyy foil zits, I did not even bother blacking out the #'s. I could have, but ... I found myself simply deciding in my brain to accept or reject. And in doing so, I noticed no lack of efficiency on normal coin sized targets. I can't say for certain if it was superior or deeper (I don't think so). But just saying: At least the ability was there, if ... for some reason ... I chose to chase some micro-signals. While all the while : Not lacking for normal ring/coin sized targets.

It's just that I can't think of many locations where I would ever care to angle for such objects. Knowing the punishing ratio of ttteeennnsssyyy foil zits a person would have to contend with. Perhaps on wet sand after erosion ? Perhaps on posse-hunts where someone's commissioned you to help them find an wire earring, or tinsel thin chain ?

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just remember Tom’s firm belief that the vast bulk
> of all the small and especially white gold is stil
> l out there - undetected by the previous generatio
> n of multifreq and PI detectors.
>


Well, yes. And so too has "previous generations" left reams and reams of tteeennnsssyy junk in the ground too.

There was a hunter in San Jose CA area, who reasoned that there must be lots of teensy smaller jewelry left behind. In all the tan bark and sand boxes of the countless school and park boxes in the SF bay area. Since they were being routinely hit for their jewelry potential, yet ... the standard machines would miss tinsel thin chains, etc...

So he got himself a beach pulse machine, and made it his mission to hit scores of these sandboxes, to "see what others were missing". I grant you that a beach pulse machine would have no way to discern a staple, or bread-tie twistie, etc.... (ie.: Can't knock out iron). But ... he was on a mission to see just how much micro-jewelry had been left behind.

He did indeed find some dainty earring studds, a few dainty chains, etc... But in the end, he had to admit: It simply wasn't worth it. The amount of time spent for the negligible amount of gold, just wasn't worth it. He concluded that his time would have been better spent to simply go to the beach, if he wanted gold that bad. And/or look for normal sized rings, so that he could miss the reams of silly tttteeeennnnsssy stuff. But as I say: This was without the ability to pass iron. No doubt the Nox would improve upon this experiment.

Up to my ____ in Pulltabs, Grant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... or you will miss that precious gold with the ic
> e attached.
>

How many valuable stones do you think are mounted in micro-jewelry ? And by "valuable", I'm talking about more than 1/2 carat diamond (or some sort of precious emeralds, etc...). Because believe it or not, diamond smaller than ... say ... 1/2 to 2/3 carat , are hard to resell or get value for. As much as we all go "googoo-gaga" for diamond rings, yet ... truth be told ... the diamond has to be very big to have any resell value. Small 1/4 or 1/3 diamonds don't carry much value on the used market (even though dupes are paying high dollar for them in the jewelry store counter)

I've seen a few micro-jewelry items that had valuable stones in them. But let's be dreadfully honest: The average earring stud is just that: An earing stud. And the average tinsel thin necklace or bracelet is just that: A tinsel thin chain, period. Once in a blue moon there's some sort of wire-setting for some sort of emerald or diamond that ... yes .... only a specialty machine can find. But that is going to be rare amongst micro-jewelry.

If you were to browse a large jewelry store, and ... theoretically be able to air test all their stuff, I don't think very much of it would be "valuable stones you would have missed, unless you had a specialty machine".

JMHO.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... trying to wade through the endle
> ss myriads of pull-tabs and whatnot at the park be
> fore you get the prize.
>
> They're certainly out there, but at the end of the
> day, is it worth the effort?


Right. And if someone thinks it's punishing to go to turfed parks NOW, and wade through foil & tabs trying to get gold jewelry, think about HOW MUCH MORE PUNISHING to also edit in ttteeennnnsssyy foil, in someone's quest for micro-jewelry. It only makes the recipe worse, not better.

Way back in-the-day, when TID was first introduced (early to mid 1980s), there were some pioneering fellows who made "ring enhancement programs". Apparently they tested hundreds and hundreds of typical jewelry items (they must've had friends who owned jewelry stores). Then they tested hundreds and hundreds of typically found junk items. And then it was simply a matter of doing computer spread sheets and charting the TID of every single item. And then doing the averages for the most-likely-places that gold rings tended to fall, versus the most-likely regions that junk items tended to fall. Then the user would program his Eagle or Spectrum, etc.... with these edit #'s.

And here's what's interesting about that: The #'s down in the looowww foil range range (where micro-jewelry would be) were #s to be edited out. So for whatever reason (if their studies of ratios were accurate), the makers of those ring enhancement programs deemed those #'s to be non-conducive for the amount of trash that generally falls into those zone #'s.

And ... like any Las Vegas odds, sure, that means you'll miss something good. But it was all in Las Vegas odds of where the most rings fell, and the most junk fell. So the only time I might investigate flitty super low micro-#s like this, is after beach erosion takes out all the light stuff.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2018 04:43AM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> adamBomb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dewcon4414 Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > I thi
> > > nk the biggest surprise was the percentage of
> wo
> > me
> > > ns ring to mens. Those are the ones we just
> ar
> > en
> > > t getting.... small ladies rings and jewelry p
> ie
> > ce
> > > s. These rings arent down there like the muc
> h
> > la
> > > rger mens...... they sink to their equal weigh
> t.
> > ..
> > > ... we just arent able to see them and its not
> j
> > us
> > > t a depth thing.
> >
> > And this is what i am waiting to find. Still not
> f
> > inding them with the nox. Look at the %s across
> fo
> > rums - nearly always mens gold bands. Heck my on
> ly
> > gold with the nox is a mens gold band though the
> f
> > all is the best time to detect around me when st
> or
> > ms roll through. But the % of mens to womens rin
> gs
> > just boggles my mind because women wear way more
> r
> > ings than men. I mean my wife wears an engagemen
> t
> > and wedding band.
>
> Good post. I have often wondered about this. I'
> m near the beach. And for the last 35+ yrs. have
> done tons of beach detecting here @ central coast
> CA. And you're right: The majority of gold rings
> found are men's rings. Not women's rings. And ye
> s: Men's rings tend to be bigger/beefier sized.
> While Women's rings tend to be smaller, daintier,
> etc....
>
> But I'm not convinced that it's due to our machine
> 's tending to favor the larger items (less likely
> to miss). Because ... even a dainty women's ring,
> is still a slam dunk for most machines. Even pow
> er house machines not known for dainty targets (Xc
> al, CZ's, XLT's, etc...) can still pick up most wo
> men's rings with ease.
>
> So I'm tempted to wonder if there's just a demogra
> phics thing going on, with rates-of-loss. Ie.: me
> n tend to be more prone to fumble fingers (frolick
> ing sports-action/movements, swimming, surfing, et
> c...) than women. Eh ?

That's it in a nut shell Tom. Because women are more careful, engagement rings and bands simply don't get lost that often. A lot of posts you read go something like " I took it off and placed on my towel and forgot about it" Hunting fresh water for many years I have found way more gold chains than womens rings and of course men's bands are by far the most likely to be found for the reasons you stated. Over the years I have found precious few truly deep men's rings on the sand bars, time will tell if the NOX ups that type of find.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2018 07:19AM by Jackpine.

To me beach detecting is all about maximizing time. It is the only type of detecting with renewable targets. Finding bits of small foil and bottle caps is a waste of time and energy. It seems to me the one big benefit of using the Equinox on the beach is the weight of the detector. An anti fatigue tactic. Yet digging and sifting are the most strenuous things we do out there. While the Equinox certainly seems more capable than some older beach detectors of finding small gold it suffers from the same disability of identifying it. I have to wonder about the fascination of looking for it. I personally believe those earing posts with sizable stones are few and far between. In today's age of carbon rings and S steel rings and basically any cheap metal rings I have to wonder who has the money to invest in large stone earrings let alone wear them to the beach. And they need to be large stones or they simply will not be worth the effort. I have tried to sell small stones.....nobody wants them. Small gold chains? Again it comes down to math. Personally I am after the larger stuff. Small chains are a pleasant surprise. I usually only find one with something attached, and I have eyeballed a few. But again.......value? Until a detector discriminates out just the gold..... small chains and studs will be elusive. When that detector finally comes out? Well that is actually more bad news. Everyone and their brother will have one including tons of brand new people swinging them.

We have all had those days where targets are few and far between. We call it by a few terms....usually sanded in. That would be the time to look for those small gold items in my opinion since they will be the only targets near the surface worth looking for. Personally I would rather put the detector back in the car and go for a drink. That's just me.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2018 10:49AM by goodmore.

Tom you are making an argument that you dont want to dig small gold...... im not talking micro.... there are larger pieces we just dont get. You know as well as i do in the wet sand near the water where a lot of this small gold is theres not nearly the amount of trash as in the dry sand. As far as fresh water..... thats a chore since corrosion takes mega years. But .... like most detectors you have the ability to disc OUT those targets if you dont wish to find them. So that kind of ends that argument. I had mentioned tweaking beach 1 to find smaller gold....... it appears to have been confusing. What i ment was ML needs to tweak it because right now there is no amount of tweaking going to do that. As far as someone using a PI to test to see just how much small gold is missed..... it to has its limits currently depending on the machine used. Again ......my point being i want the ability to have a choice and know at least my machine would find those targets. I make choices now when hunting........ do i do dry sand, will i hit the shallow or concentrate on the wet sand...... or like currently the water is HOT and we have a lot of sand so people can move out to sand bars so they are just all over the place in deeper water. During recent drop times that small stuff moves to shore or is dropped by walker who like to walk in the shallow water. Yes you can dig a lot of foil...... but if they separate the digits a bit and make it a true beach program that hunts for GOLD ill dig the heck out of those 1s and 2 digits....IN THE WET SAND. Im just not looking for anything much above a penny anyway....... and those HUGE rings even at a penny are kind of rare in the 21 to 23 digit. MOST of us have been digging the heck out of digit 1 and 2...... why because ML lead us to believe it would find those chains ect shown to use in videos when it was introduced. That very same foil IMO was there with the CTX and we could dig it but we chose not to...... am i right?

Right now im getting my share of gold with the Nox... ive done pretty well, but i think we are still looking for THAT machine. The Nox is a strong performer as a beach machine for the price for sure......but i believe it needs a bit more tweaking in beach 1 for wet sand to be a real BEAST.

It is good to remember that even fairly heavy chains are “SMALL” targets because the detector effectively “hears” it as a single link. Even a section of a fairly thick chain - without a clasp - is a tough target for any current detector in salt water. the Nox seems to so as well if not better than any current machine, but only in Beach 1 - and that is tough to run in running salt water.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold