bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,535
- 9,072
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
During our last trip up north Miller433 & I ran into a curious situation that sort of left us wondering if some detectorist are expecting or assuming too much from today's machines, perhaps by setting their discrimination too high in order to ignore things like heavy iron nails. The reason we were left wondering this was because we water hunted a beach that was extremely clean, and I mean, “extremely clean”. Yet, we were still able to pull two heavy gold rings and one heavy gold/silver class ring from moderate depths. Out in the water on this beach we found no pull tabs, no bottle caps, and none of the other usual questionable targets. I know in the past while using various detectors it’s quite possible to set them too high which can cause the signals/tones of gold objects to breakup or to give a chattered tone very similar to the same broken tones they will produce on many larger iron objects, thus giving the detectorist a possible false report on the true nature of the object. Even heavier/denser gold items can signal different then thinner or lighter gold objects, etc. The angle at which they rest in the substrate can also cause broken responses similar to those of discriminated iron objects. I’m only bringing this up because that makes twice that I have come across this same strange situation (gold on otherwise extremely clean beaches) in the last month or so. This last situation took place on the public beach at Lake Otsego, just north of Grayling Michigan and these rings had been in the water for a while, all of them 4” to 10” deep into the substrate, perhaps one was even a bit deeper. Accept for these three rings and a couple of copper/brass jewelry targets found close to the waterline, it was obvious that this beach was being regularly cleaned of lost items. Miller433 was using an Excal with a WOT and he later told me that the 14k white gold band he found on this beach didn’t read as a solid good target until after his first failed scoop attempt. A bit more discrimination and he may not have gotten that first questionable response on it at all. I think in this era of improved technology it’s sometimes easy for us to assume too much and to forget that things like the shape, size, and the density of the target still have an effect on target responses. Discrimination can be a great tool, but using too much of it can also be counterproductive. Just passing these last few curious experiences along. Has anyone else noticed this same curious situation becoming more common place?
Upvote
0