For gold rings, what machine...

2 gold rings that registered as ring pulls here

[www.metaldetectingforum.co.uk]

Very cool, diggers, thanks for sharing that. I'm somewhat surprised a 9K ring rang up as a pull tab...

Steve

9 Kt. is very popular in Ireland somewhat like 10 kt. is popular in U.S.....size and weight has a lot to do with it as a large man perhaps college ring(10Kt) can come in as high as Zinc penny...again with all the sizes, weights shapes. Kt's and most of all whats mixed with the gold to make it harder and one can go from low foil to zinc penny with a metered unit..
This particuliar 10 kt. ring looked quite heavy and one wonders what sort of tabs are found in this particuliar area which it was found compared to rings in our neck of the woods...

Dan -- good point on wondering what kind of ring tabs they were...

I would have expected ANY 9K or 10K ring, unless TINY, to have rung up higher than a nickel, but I guess it just goes to show how gold can hit literally anywhere on the VDI scale...

Steve

Well Tom, I am putting a 10 1/2" spider on my CZ3D.
Will let you know at the end of the season if I nabbed any.

Prepare for your heads to explode...:') I just dug up a bunch of related threads to read on gold ring hunting on land that should prove of interest to you guys...

Anybody ONLY Ring Hunt On Land?

[www.findmall.com]

Why Did You Dig That Signal That Turned Out To Be A Gold Ring? (Or Some Other Good Find)

[www.findmall.com]

Digging It All. Unmasking Silver Coins Or Finding Gold Rings & Other Good Finds. How Well Has It Worked Out For You?

[www.findmall.com]

Land Hunting For Rings- Your Best Spots?

[www.findmall.com]

Horseshoe Pitts…

[www.findmall.com]

And basketball courts…

[www.findmall.com]

The Condensed & To The Point New "Splitting Hairs On Gold Rings" Thread. Some Rather Shocking Statistics On Just Where Most Gold Rings Fall. It Ain't What You Probably Always Thought!

This one gets right to the point, but provides a link to the old novel long thread in which the original data was went over. This new thread also contains links to compilations of ring VDI #s for the Etrac and M6/MXT like it was originaly done in the novel sized thread with the Sovereign. And, in this new thread below there is also a generic conductivity scale with the percentages to apply to any detector, along with instructions on how to determine the start and end of the foil, nickle, tab, and coin zones on any machine so you can apply the statistical percentages to those VDI zones on your machine while digging. In other words, the data is easily applied to the VDI on any machine, so long as it's resolution isn't so super low in that you can't make enough distinction between these four zones on the conductivity scale with any kind of near good accuracy. Still, even with super poor resolution machines out there it can still be of some help. The higher the low (foil) to mid range (just below zinc penny) resolution is on your machine, the more distinctive these four zones will be and so the more useful the data is and the more useful strategy will be at various sites as you try to play the odds and avoid the most common trash zones present there while digging the others.

[www.findmall.com]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2012 08:49PM by critterhunter.

Critterhunter -- I'm REALLY enjoying reading these links you've provided; not done yet, but had a question. In one of these threads, you discussed a friend who finds alot of gold rings, and said he swears he can hear a "different sound" between a gold ring, and a pull tab that IDs exactly the same way. What kind of machine is he swinging, for curiousity's sake?

Steve

GREAT stuff here, critterhunter!

Steve

It was/is an MXT he uses. The guy is ALWAYS finding gold rings on land. That's all he hunts for. Doesn't even bother with old coin hunting as far as I know.

MXT, eh? Interesting...

Steve

Yes, good audio, but not nearly as good/long/detailed/or with nearly as many tone alerts as the BBS machines. The VDI resolution is also not as good on the M6/MXT, as we scanned all those rings and tabs into an M6 as well (which has the same VDI as the MXT), and found that it didn't have nearly the separation of things like the tab zone versus the nickle zone. As a matter of fact, I was just reading a few weeks back on a forum about complaints from M6/MXT users who were digging too many tabs in the nickle zone. Never a problem with the Sovereign and 180 meters. They are very distinctly separated, and by the tone alone I just "know" it's a nickle versus a higher tab tone, not to mention the nice smooth "round" sound a nickle makes compared to trash that might read the same number. Usually for me a nickle is about 143 or 144 on the VDI, but they can read as high as about 146 or so and as low as (from memory of the charts) around 136 or 139 or so, but the norm is right in the 143/144 or so range.

This is the first machine I've ever owned where a nickle is almost a sure bet by VDI and audio. If it changes by 3 digits or more depending on sweep chances are it's trash, but I have dug a few nickles that changed by 3 digits, but I knew they were going to be nickles because the audio was so smooth and "round" sounding. That's why the audio should ALWAYS over ride the VDI on pretty much any machine. Go by what the audio tells you first and foremost, although the VDI on the Sovereign is very reliable and probably the most reliable I've ever used, as it doesn't highly process it for display or such which could "change" the VDI of a target, and is instant and doesn't lag.

You might want to read the latest post in the CTX thread, as I relate what an Excal user has to say about how he claims to be able to hear the difference between foil drink tops and other junk versus a gold ring on his BBS machine, while the CTX is not nearly giving him the audio details in that respect of "language" about targets. Not a big surprise, as I didn't expect it would based on how different the BBS machines are in audio compared to the FBS ones.

I only coin detect maybe 10-15 times a yr, using a mxt due to time constraints and running a business, I got one gold ring last fall 10k black hills w/diamond chip, but I got a buddy that detects most days during wk 1-2 hrs a day, last fall he found around 4K in scrap gold in a three-four month period, plus a large amount of silver and junk jewelry and lots of coins. He used a mxt for that, however due to health reasons, he has bought a lightweight compadre and a vaquero and does almost as well with either of these units, and so far prefers the compadre due to weight. He found a nice 14K dinner ring second time out with the compadre at 4". I think the key to gold rings is not so much the detector, once you have a decent one, as running super low disc, which he does, 1-2 on whites disc knob, and iron on the tesoros. Plus being consistent in your hunting time as much as possible is a major key to success with finding gold rings. More days behind the detector reduces the odds dramatically. Depth does not seem to be that much of a factor either, most of the good items he finds lay in the first 3-4 inches of dirt. His compadre is good for about 7 inches in depth. Just my 2 cents worth of observations.

critterhunter -- you are about to "sell" me, when combined with NASA-Tom's endorsement, on a Sovereign for gold hunting! All I need now is some cash (easier said than done), and some luck at finding an old, used Sov!

MXT SNIPER -- Sounds like your friend, when using the MXT, found a good bit of gold, but still does, with his move to Tesoro units. I really believe that the right machine JUST MIGHT offer a few audio clues -- which I think could be that little "extra" edge; otherwise, what you said (maximum time spent out hunting), and digging LOTS of likely-to-be-trash targets, is how you find the gold...

Steve

The MXT/M6 are great machines from what I hear for gold ring hunting. If I was to go back to a Whites, and I wanted a machine with good gold ring hunting potential (due to audio ability and such), then I'd for sure opt for the M6 or MXT.

critterhunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was/is an MXT he uses. The guy is ALWAYS
> finding gold rings on land. That's all he hunts
> for. Doesn't even bother with old coin hunting as
> far as I know.


***Yes, that is what I posed as a question earlier.
I am finding from the many forums here that alot of detectorists do VERY WELL in the RING department with the White's M6 and MXT Pro. [whiteselectronics.com]
They have SEVEN unique tones.
I am sorry to say, but that beats the CZ's 4 unique tones. I am sure that the added noise flavor must be enchancing the finds and are not coincidence.
Any comments?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 06:30PM by Coilfishing.

Coilfishing --

Your idea that "added noise flavor" must be enhancing the finds may indeed be true. I've never used an MXT or M6 so I don't know how good the "language" of the machines is. But, having said that, I'm not sure that number of tones is ALL the answer, ALL the time. I don't think it's as simple as "the CZs have 4 tones and the MXT has 7, thus the MXT must give more/better info." That very well MAY be true (that the MXT gives more audio info than a CZ) -- but I think more than the NUMBER of tones, alot rides on the more complex SUBTLETIES in the tones. The Explorers have far more than 7 tones available, but -- to my ears -- NOT alot of SUBTLETY in the tones on the low end of the spectrum. While some helpful subtlety can be heard on the HIGH end (a silver coin generally sounds a bit different -- more "warbly" or "tinkly" than an idential ID-ing clad coin), I do NOT hear much "subtlety" on low-tone ring vs. a pull tab that numerically IDs exactly the same as the ring. Along those same lines, I could imagine some "monotone" machine that -- despite it's one general tone -- offers nuance in there that provides substantial information. Ideally, I'd prefer a many-toned machine, with lots of complexity and subtlety in EACH of those multiple tones...

Hope this doesn't sound argumentative, as in general I agree with your premise -- the more tones, the better. But, to me, the "flat/steady/simple" character of a tone on some machines is MUCH DIFFERENT than the "nuanced/complex" character of a tone on another machine. Long story short -- I think there is more to it than ONLY the number of tones; I think the amount of nuance/complexity within the tones (i.e., the overall audio "language" of the unit) can be just as, if not MORE, important...

Thoughts?

Steve

Hi Guys,
Well i use the Whites v3 here in OZ and a great detector with many treaks up your sleeve. The v3 has -95 through to -1 and +1 through to + 95 which you can allot a different tone to each vdi with full acceptence in discrimination or you can just turn a tone back to zero if you dont want that target. Its a wonder to me with all the modern technology we have today is the detector manufacturers have not put a range of tunes in their as you have on your mobile phones. It would be just great.

Regards o2findit from down under in oz.

Yes, numerous multi-tones is a clear advantage, but it doesn't make up for the "detail" or "meat" of the audio in terms of telling certain things about targets. Too many digital machines process the audio and sanitize it so much that you just get a "beep" or "blurp" without the "scratchy subtle traits of say foil or oddly shaped trash, and that's just one small example of how longer/drawn out audio can give you more details about a target. Some people might say that if you can hear slight differences in certain "qualities" of say a gold ring versus *certain* types of trash, then why can't a machine tell you that it *might* be a ring by processing the audio? Truth is that those subtle traits of "clearity" are highly subjective and not easily quantified via the signal. That's why analog is prefered by many, as it's letting the "pure" nature pour through of the target's audio traits. But, as said, some digital machines have very analog like "raw" audio to them. Why? Maybe they still have analog circuits in that respect, or at the least are only letting the signal spill through the digital circuits without trying to clean it up. Think of it this way...There are some to this day (it's making a comeback) who prefer analog records over CDs. Why? They swear they can hear more detail. At the very least, you get the scratchy nature of the record in your ears, so in fact you are getting more true "nature" of the object the audio is being derived from, just like a metal target under a detector. If I didn't know the Sovereign was a digital machine, and only heard it's audio with no exposure to the machine it's self, I'd swear it was a analog machine....But would probably know it wasn't just due to the number of alert tones. That many tones is of the digital age for sure.

Hey Critter,do you notice that nickels on the Sov have a certain" bong" ( only way I can describe) to them? Me n my explorer buddy where hitting the same old park for deep silver,and I decided to go for buffalos. Dug only the 138-140,and listened for that distinct bong to it. Maybe it was the s-12 that did it. Worked though,I dug 5 or 6 ugly buffs that day.

deathray, this is some interesting stuff...I look forward to the answer to this...this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm asking about...

Steve

>In Reply to steveg above
>
>

I completely agree with what you are saying.
But, there is no denying we got some boys here doing excpetionally well in the ring department with the White's M6/MXT PRO type detectors.
I am just saying since, Tom here has stated the CZ-3D with the unique added foil tone was a better choice than most detectors to find gold rings,
the White's products mentioned have 7 associated tones. I am going upon that basis.
I have never used a White's so I cannot speak from experience. Yet, apparently I am not the only one either who has noticed this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2012 04:02AM by Coilfishing.

Yeah Steve,the sov is one amazing machine. Was my main detector for a long time.all this info from Critter has got me wanting another...may have to sell an at pro....

gold might look the same but it has a plethora of base metals added to the alloy which could confuse any machine....

Coilfishing -- you are absolutely right, there's no denying how well some of the White's users do on gold rings, and I wasn't trying to "deny" that. I am simply trying to "split hairs" here, in a discussion of tones, to gather as much understanding of this as I can. I have not used that many machines since I've been detecting, but have heard many "old-timers" talk about that "analog audio," and how there's nothing out there quite like it in the new machines. What this implies to me is that audio CAN hold substantial clues -- clues which were exploited by many of the long-time detectorists with those old machines to "up their odds" of digging gold. And, since I have a MANY-tone machine, in my Explorer, but know it's not the best "gold ring finder," I presume that NUMBER of tones is not the whole picture. If I were to simply find the machine that can produce the largest number of tones, and figure that I therefore bought the machine that has the most complex "audio language," that may NOT be the case, I am guessing. Along those lines, the 7-tone language of the MXT may be MUCH better than my multi-toned Explorer -- in terms of the subtleties and clues within the tones. Like I say, I'm just trying to understand this, and do NOT mean to come across as being argumentative or difficult.

Having said all of this, and in support of your "White's doing well on rings" thing, I have had some other folks detail a very nice, "rich" language in these units that an experienced MXT/M-6 user can exploit, to their advantage...

deathray...so you are not the ONLY one being influenced by Critter's Sovereign discussion... They sound like very good machines, with a very unique audio languange...

diggers -- no doubt true...

Steve

Coilfishing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> critterhunter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was/is an MXT he uses. The guy is ALWAYS
> > finding gold rings on land. That's all he hunts
> > for. Doesn't even bother with old coin hunting
> as
> > far as I know.
>
>
> ***Yes, that is what I posed as a question
> earlier.
> I am finding from the many forums here that alot
> of detectorists do VERY WELL in the RING
> department with the White's M6 and MXT Pro.
> [whiteselectronics.com]
> They have SEVEN unique tones.
> I am sorry to say, but that beats the CZ's 4
> unique tones. I am sure that the added noise
> flavor must be enchancing the finds and are not
> coincidence.
> Any comments?

It's been a while since I messed with a friend's M6 (that he got rid of), but doesn't the M6 have more tones than the MXT? If I'm remembering right I thought the MXT had like 3 tones and the M6 had like 6 or something? That's why I always thought I remember saying that if I wanted to choose between them I'd take the M6 for better coin/ring tone potential to tell targets apart, but it's been a while since I was looking into them to consider purchasing one. Played with my friend's M6 but in my low to high mineral land sites it just didn't get the depth. None of the high frequency machines (high frequency to me is say about 10khz or higher, and low to me is about 8 or lower, but more so around 3 to 7Khz) I've owned or used got good depth in my soil and could be a bit unstable. From what I've read the M6/MXT are pretty well equal in depth on coins and rings. Perhaps a slight edge to the MXT due to having a threshold, or some claim more depth via the relic or prospecting mode or something like that I guess when coin hunting?

Now, as said though, the guy with the MXT who is always killing land rings does very well with it. He's not a direct hunting partner of mine, but rather I've hunted with him here and there when our mutual friend gets us all together. But, I'm ALWAYS hearing about this guy's latest ring he's found on land. I remember a story about when we all used to hang out at a detector dealer's shop and he and another guy got in a huge argument when he claimed that with his MXT he swears he can hear the difference between a ring and a tab with the same VDI #. Now, whether you want to believe that or not, I give the guy some room to make claims because like I said I've never heard of another hunter around here digging to many rings on land like this guy does.

We scanned in all those rings and tabs on the M6 (which has the same VDI as the MXT) and found it's resolution is lower than the Sovereign. Not as many tab numbers as the Sovereign, and no clear distinction (or at least not as clear of one) between nickles and tabs. I just read on another forum where MXT/M6 guys are complaining that they dig too many tabs when nickle hunting, so that probably says there is no distinction between some tabs on that machine and nickles. Just not enough resolution, but I can't remember from the tests we did with tabs on it to see if nickles were distinctly a different ID. I just know the tab range on it isn't as wide as the Sovereign due to less resolution between the tabs.

deathray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Critter,do you notice that nickels on the Sov
> have a certain" bong" ( only way I can describe)
> to them? Me n my explorer buddy where hitting the
> same old park for deep silver,and I decided to go
> for buffalos. Dug only the 138-140,and listened
> for that distinct bong to it. Maybe it was the
> s-12 that did it. Worked though,I dug 5 or 6 ugly
> buffs that day.

Yea, they've got a "bong" sound to them, but I like to call it a "round" sound. Think of it this way...in a way they "sound" like any other coin. Sure, the pitch is lower, but they still have the same "feel" to them of being a round object with a "smooth" sound to them. That's why I think there is some ability to tell rings apart from at least some trash, because most rings will give a nice "round" or "quality" or "smooth" "warm" sound to them. Of course I'm not saying that some trash can give the same impression. Just that there is a lot of trash that won't sound good like that, but will sound bouncy, bangy, hollow, scratchy, harsh, tinny, sick, and so on.

You know, I always thought a good idea would be to take say about 12 film canisters and then put a gold ring in about half of them and pulltabs or other junk in the others. Then mix them up on the ground and swing over them and try to guess what each is. Maybe you could develop a trained ear after a lot of practice? Of course you'd have to make sure at least some of the rings had the same or close conductivity of some of the trash or tabs, so that you aren't recognizing them by how high the tone is, but rather are trying to see if you can learn the various other audio qualities of one from the other. Pitch is pretty much useless for trying to decide what to dig for rings, unless of course you are say avoiding tabs and digging nickles or something. But if there is any potential in telling rings apart from at least *some* trash, then it's the other qualities of the audio that need to be explored I think.

deathray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah Steve,the sov is one amazing machine. Was my
> main detector for a long time.all this info from
> Critter has got me wanting another...may have to
> sell an at pro....

I wouldn't get rid of that At Pro if you can swing holding onto it for another Sovereign. I want an AT Pro to add to my line up for three reasons- First, price. Can't beat that price for a water/land machine. Second, it's light enough and with full function screen and features to be just as comfortable on land as in the water. You can't really say that about the Excal without modding the weight problem. Third- Although I wade belly button deep by chest mounting my GT, there are days I want to go deeper or the waves are bad enough to where I don't dare going more than knee deep. One more for good measure- There are days on land I'm in the mood to swing fast, and the AT Pro will allow that and is still fast enough to not cause swinger faster to be a masking issue. True, most days I now prefer slowly crawling along as I think it helps to find stuff at pounded out sites, but on days I'm wanting to scout the woods fast or rack up some fast clads, it'd be nice to have the AT Pro around for that also. I hear some guys do rather well finding silver with it in very trashy spots without the need to crawl like you have to do on a Minelab. That could be fun on days I'm just not wanting to creep along. True, the GT I can swing faster than probably most people would believe, but to get the best depth and also so masking/separation isn't a problem, you need to crawl along with it at a slow to medium/slow speed at the most. Depth wise though, in particular in my soil, I'm sure the Minelab is still going to be the go to machine, although I hear of guys getting some pretty respectable depth with the AT Pro in certain soils.

Which brings up another topic...You guys need to keep in mind the depth reports you here from different states. In some soils 9 or 10" on a silver dime is a rather common easy thing. But in many soils (including mine) even the Minelabs have trouble with getting an 8 or say 9" silver dime. ALL of them...GT, Etrac, and the Explorer. Now, that's not to say that we don't dig stuff that deep with good signals, and even get coins deeper. It all depends on the soil at the site and of course the moisture content. But, that said, often me and my Etrac friend will struggle to get a good hit on a target we are pretty sure is silver at even say about 8 to 9" deep or so. I've dug two 11" coins so far with the GT and that was under ideal wet conditions and they hit hard and ID'ed real well, but I've gone back to that same site in dry conditions and have trouble getting a good ID on a wheat at about 9" or so. Not that it can't be done, but just that it's more wiggle work to pull the proper ID and tone out of it. Anyway, just saying...That just because you hear of guys getting coins 10 to 13" on a semi-regular basis, don't think that's going to happen with the same machine in your soil if you have any kind of even moderate mineralization. Yea, the Minelabs do a good job of dealing with minerals, but it's still a limiting factor in terms of raw depth in some situations. I was just reading about a guy who say he struggles to get 9" with his Explorer (or was it Etrac?), and I've also read an excellent thread from some heavy hitters on the Etrac/Explorer who say in many soils about 8" is already starting to push things in terms of trying to get a good ID. That jives with what I've found in my soil. Now, that said, I'm also blessed with various soil types at many sites. Not all my sites are mineralized if much at all, and range from good black neutral soil all the way to limestone clay heavy stuff, to sandy stuff as well. I've got pretty much all types, but as a whole more of my sites are probably at least moderate in minerals and range up to heavier.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Coilfishing -- you are absolutely right, there's
> no denying how well some of the White's users do
> on gold rings, and I wasn't trying to "deny" that.
> I am simply trying to "split hairs" here, in a
> discussion of tones, to gather as much
> understanding of this as I can. I have not used
> that many machines since I've been detecting, but
> have heard many "old-timers" talk about that
> "analog audio," and how there's nothing out there
> quite like it in the new machines. What this
> implies to me is that audio CAN hold substantial
> clues -- clues which were exploited by many of the
> long-time detectorists with those old machines to
> "up their odds" of digging gold. And, since I
> have a MANY-tone machine, in my Explorer, but know
> it's not the best "gold ring finder," I presume
> that NUMBER of tones is not the whole picture. If
> I were to simply find the machine that can produce
> the largest number of tones, and figure that I
> therefore bought the machine that has the most
> complex "audio language," that may NOT be the
> case, I am guessing. Along those lines, the
> 7-tone language of the MXT may be MUCH better than
> my multi-toned Explorer -- in terms of the
> subtleties and clues within the tones. Like I
> say, I'm just trying to understand this, and do
> NOT mean to come across as being argumentative or
> difficult.
>
> Having said all of this, and in support of your
> "White's doing well on rings" thing, I have had
> some other folks detail a very nice, "rich"
> language in these units that an experienced
> MXT/M-6 user can exploit, to their advantage...
>
> deathray...so you are not the ONLY one being
> influenced by Critter's Sovereign discussion...
> They sound like very good machines, with a
> very unique audio languange...
>
> diggers -- no doubt true...
>
> Steve

Funny, because I just replied in this thread about the very thing you hit on...More tons is great and I love it for sure, but that doesn't automaticly make a machine with less tones no good for ring hunting. It's not so much the number of tones, but rather the "meat" or "qualitity" or "detail" in the audio harmonics that is the most important I think. However, don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a ton of tones so you can at least ignore certain "junk" where there is a lot of one type in an area, while then keying in on any tones that are higher or lower than that, so it's for sure a big factor in helping ring hunting I think. It's just that the harmonics are where any potential to tell rings from trash (if there is any, or at least in some ways from some trash) is going to be found.

I wouldn't sell off any machines here to grab a Sovereign you guys. Only swing one if you can keep what you got and have money to burn, because this machine is NOT for everybody. I've seen of plenty of people who bought one and hated it. It's very different then many other machines in certain ways. But, that said, I feel if you put the time in and give it a really fair chance you'll soon discover just how deep this thing is, as well as just how good it's audio is, and how stable of a machine it is in the worst of grounds (some say even more stable/deeper than FBS machines in certain soils/sands). And also that it's Iron Mask has some seemingly unique ability to pull non-ferrous signals out of iron.

Some argue the Explorer II is the deepest silver machine Minelab ever made, even compared to the SE or Etrac. Others argue the XS was. Still even some, including me, argue the Sovereign is the deepest silver machine they ever used. Who is right? I think everybody can be right. It might very well be that some soils favor one machine over another, or that even coil choice can and will make that difference in your soil. Heck, I even have read threads where guys using other Minelabs now say the Sovereign with an 8" coil got them their deepest coin ever. That might be due to mineralized ground, because in fact an 8" coil can get deeper than a 10" coil in certain soils. I still want to try an 8" here, because I think my little S-5 might hit a dime easily at 9" in my soil, so maybe an 8" coil will at some of my sites beat a larger coil. I've had that happen with a few other machines in the past at really bad sites, where a smaller coil gives at least better ID at depth than a larger one.

But anyway, I'm just saying don't let me make it sound like this machine is the answer for everybody. It was for me, in my soil, but for others who don't get along with it they may feel it's the worst machine they've ever used. One thing that gets overlooked is that different people and different machines all have different personalities. If you don't "mesh" with a machine and really understand how it acts on the deep stuff, then it isn't going to get those super deep ones for you. Regardless of machine, you've got to know and understand it and "gel" with it. That's the trick to getting extra deep or unmasking the worst coins.

But, if you do think you'd like to try a Sovereign, there were like 5 or so models. Only thing I know for sure is that the first model had a bad habit for hot rocks and most say to avoid it for that reason. All the rest they say are pretty evenly matched in depth, but some say the Elite was a bit deeper than all the prior models, and most say the current GT is the deepest of all of them, or at least easier to ID stuff at extreme depth because it's more sensitive. On the other hand, many of these Sovereigns came with various coils. Old 8" BBS coils or 10" BBS coils (both lousy and heavy), the 8" Coinsearch coil (many love this coil for depth and audio), the new 8" or 10" Tornado (or Slimline) coils most say are the best of the best of the Minelab coils these days. Anyway, just saying that some of the differing opinions on depth might be due to the coils they used. Strap the same coil on two different models and I bet they are pretty much a tie. That said, many claim the GT is the deepst of them all, though.

You don't really see too many Sovereigns up for sale used. They've sold a lot of them over the years, but I think people tend to hold onto them even if they get another machine. The GT I think is just about as hard to find used as the Etrac was before the CTX came out. Now you see a lot of Etracs up for sale, but interestingly enough still not too many GT I think from what little I've looked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2012 06:15PM by critterhunter.

Again, lots of good, well-thought-out stuff in your posts here, critterhunter. I appreciate it.

Steve

I can agree that having used a good audio machine it does tend to give a certain descriptive noises to the item beneath the coil.
But, I also have used several digital machines that also give good sounds beneath the coil too that are very descriptive.
All good points to take for manufacturers of the next generation of machines.