TESORO now selling out, they are done.

Harold,ILL. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Hillis likes those Goldstrikes.
> Don't they have 2 tone I.D.? And Modulated audio?


Thought it was the Coinstrikes.

DeepTech Vista X with 3 search coils.
Works for me

The Goldstrike does have two tone ID... Low and high. You can also knock out hot rocks which is a plus. Very very good machine designed by Dimitar Gargov. And at 30khz a real sleeper of a gold machine.

Does it have adjustable tone breaks?

treasurehunter747 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Goldstrike does have two tone ID... Low and hi
> gh. You can also knock out hot rocks which is a pl
> us. Very very good machine designed by Dimitar Gar
> gov. And at 30khz a real sleeper of a gold machine
> .

I found my first gold nugget with a Goldstrike.----Still have the nugget--it looks like a Scotty dog.-----I later got rid of the Goldstrike--should have kept them both I guess. .

I have done well with my Goldstrike and would not part with it. The ability to find gold under hot rocks is a huge asset. Dimitar did great designing both the Coinstrike and Goldstrike.

The thread is about Tesoro and now it’s also about Fisher.

Tesoro went broke because they failed to innovate. No new engineering talent was brought onboard.

Fisher (the “old” Fisher) went broke because they were poorly run and were losing a ton of money. They brought in new engineering talent but it didn’t save them. The machines they introduced in their last years of operation were certainly innovative, but they were in so many ways far apart from what potential customers were used to - in some cases exactly the opposite of what they were used to. They sold very poorly and I expect that the money invested in these new models was never recouped.

The Goldstrike, like the Coinstrike, never caught on - too different - too demanding of the user - which is ironic because it was supposed to make nugget hunting easier. Here’s a post from 2003 on a now defunct forum.

“,,, considering that the Goldstrike has proven to be a miserable disaster (judging from the private comments made to me by Fisher dealers, and the very public comments from disgruntled users I have heard at the Gold Shows) then Fisher ought to re-consider killing off the Goldbug I. One dealer told me that the current Fisher dealer newsletter supposedly says "Do not believe all those negative comments made on the internet prospecting forums about the Goldstrike. They are untrue; they are being made by former Goldbug II users." If that is indeed true, then somebody in Los Banos oughta read the writing on the wall.... before the wall collapses on 'em.”

Fisher was way down the road to bankrupcy by the time that they were acquired by First Texas - someone who knows the facts told me that Fisher was losing $1M per year on $7M of revenue.


It’s funny, we clamor for new developments to push detector performance forward and rant and rave about the lack of progress when no new models come our from a manufacturer - or protest at “re-badging” if an existing platform is released under a new name in a different distribution channel. But woe betide the manufacturer who fails to maintain a kind of “continuity” with existing interface patterns.

We demand adaptability to different types of targets in different ground environments, but then we complain because the interface is too complex or that too many adjustments are required - and folks eagerly seek new “programs” to run on their machines.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

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

>
>
> It’s funny, we clamor for new developments to push
> detector performance forward and rant and rave abo
> ut the lack of progress when no new models come ou
> r from a manufacturer - or protest at “re-badging”
> if an existing platform is released under a new na
> me in a different distribution channel. But woe be
> tide the manufacturer who fails to maintain a kind
> of “continuity” with existing interface patterns.
>
> We demand adaptability to different types of targe
> ts in different ground environments, but then we c
> omplain because the interface is too complex or th
> at too many adjustments are required - and folks e
> agerly seek new “programs” to run on their machine
> s.

Yep, sounds about right!

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thread is about Tesoro and now it’s also about
> Fisher.
>
> Tesoro went broke because they failed to innovate.
> No new engineering talent was brought onboard.
>
> Fisher (the “old” Fisher) went broke because they
> were poorly run and were losing a ton of money. T
> hey brought in new engineering talent but it didn’
> t save them. The machines they introduced in thei
> r last years of operation were certainly innovativ
> e, but they were in so many ways far apart from wh
> at potential customers were used to - in some case
> s exactly the opposite of what they were used to.
> They sold very poorly and I expect that the money
> invested in these new models was never recouped.
>
> The Goldstrike, like the Coinstrike, never caught
> on - too different - too demanding of the user - w
> hich is ironic because it was supposed to make nug
> get hunting easier. Here’s a post from 2003 on a
> now defunct forum.
>
> “,,, considering that the Goldstrike has proven to
> be a miserable disaster (judging from the private
> comments made to me by Fisher dealers, and the ver
> y public comments from disgruntled users I have he
> ard at the Gold Shows) then Fisher ought to re-con
> sider killing off the Goldbug I. One dealer told m
> e that the current Fisher dealer newsletter suppos
> edly says "Do not believe all those negative comme
> nts made on the internet prospecting forums about
> the Goldstrike. They are untrue; they are being ma
> de by former Goldbug II users." If that is indeed
> true, then somebody in Los Banos oughta read the w
> riting on the wall.... before the wall collapses o
> n 'em.”
>
> Fisher was way down the road to bankrupcy by the t
> ime that they were acquired by First Texas - someo
> ne who knows the facts told me that Fisher was los
> ing $1M per year on $7M of revenue.
>
>
> It’s funny, we clamor for new developments to push
> detector performance forward and rant and rave abo
> ut the lack of progress when no new models come ou
> r from a manufacturer - or protest at “re-badging”
> if an existing platform is released under a new na
> me in a different distribution channel. But woe be
> tide the manufacturer who fails to maintain a kind
> of “continuity” with existing interface patterns.
>
> We demand adaptability to different types of targe
> ts in different ground environments, but then we c
> omplain because the interface is too complex or th
> at too many adjustments are required - and folks e
> agerly seek new “programs” to run on their machine
> s.


That's "progress" Rick!

"We demand adaptability to different types of targets in different ground environments, but then we complain because the interface is too complex or that too many adjustments are required - and folks eagerly seek new “programs” to run on their machines."

Truth. I read lots of complaints about this or that machine being too complicated or not having an intuitive interface but then want more features in another machine. I guess that's why you see so few Treasure Baron Cointrax's. About as many features as you can get in a single frequency detector. I'm still one of their biggest fans but even I'll admit they take a bit of learning. But anything can become second nature with enough use. Read the manual, get hours in and most any machine can be an old friend



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2019 09:47PM by dgerst.