Is the Sand Shark really this insensitive to small gold?

[hobbit]

Hi everyone. I am waiting for a small microphone with a preamp so that I can shoot some actual video of beach detector field tests. I have been doing some pre-testing with my Tesoro Sand Shark with 8 inch coil and the results I am getting just don't seem to stack-up with some of the stories I have been told. I took a .3g 14kt gold hoop earring and did everything I could to get the Sand Shark to respond to the target...but I could get nothing, no matter what I did with the controls. I have heard that some people regularly dig 14kt gold earring backs at 12 inches with a Sand Shark. They weigh much less than .3g... I then tested a 1.0g 10kt diamond/ gold earring and the best depth I could get was about 1 inch no matter what I did with the controls. I am also not having any luck at all with small gold chains. There is nothing wrong with my machine, I can assure you. It actually gets fairly respectable depth on larger gold and inexpensive, high conductive jewelry. There seems to be lots of that detected with the Sand Shark. I just don't want to give this machine short shrift in my upcoming video. Can any other Sand Shark users give me their input? I would especially be interested in hearing from Sand Shark owners who actually did tests with their machines to see what kind of depth they are getting on small, real gold targets. Thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

Hi everyone. I am waiting for a small microphone with a preamp so that I can shoot some actual video of beach detector field tests. I have been doing some pre-testing with my Tesoro Sand Shark with 8 inch coil and the results I am getting just don't seem to stack-up with some of the stories I have been told. I took a .3g 14kt gold hoop earring and did everything I could to get the Sand Shark to respond to the target...but I could get nothing, no matter what I did with the controls. I have heard that some people regularly dig 14kt gold earring backs at 12 inches with a Sand Shark. They weigh much less than .3g... I then tested a 1.0g 10kt diamond/ gold earring and the best depth I could get was about 1 inch no matter what I did with the controls. I am also not having any luck at all with small gold chains. There is nothing wrong with my machine, I can assure you. It actually gets fairly respectable depth on larger gold and inexpensive, high conductive jewelry. There seems to be lots of that detected with the Sand Shark. I just don't want to give this machine short shrift in my upcoming video. Can any other Sand Shark users give me their input? I would especially be interested in hearing from Sand Shark owners who actually did tests with their machines to see what kind of depth they are getting on small, real gold targets. Thanks.

Perhaps you should have someone that knows how to operate the machines you want to film, actually do the testing. Seems lame to ask for help when you are supposed to be the expert doing the testing. Or are you just slamming a machine you do not know how to use? Either way, lame.

 

[hobbit]

Perhaps you should have someone that knows how to operate the machines you want to film, actually do the testing. Seems lame to ask for help when you are supposed to be the expert doing the testing. Or are you just slamming a machine you do not know how to use? Either way, lame.

I never claimed to be an expert. I have owned an operated a Sand Shark for something like 10 + years, though. That certainly does not make me an expert. It just means I have used the machine for a long time. I have always done just fine on larger gold at medium depths and, especially, inexpensive high conductive stuff. But, I must admit, in all that time I have never found one 14kt earring back.

In regards to not being able to use the Sand Shark, I recently read this on another thread: "Metal detecting has become so easy with the new machines and technology these days that any moron can do it." Does the Sand Shark not qualify?

I am just hoping that some real, honest Sand Shark users will take out their machines, take a .3g gold earring, try to detect it, and tell me what they find.

I would really like to hear some constructive answers to this post. Please don't try to hijack it, Mr. Solomon. Everyone is aware that you claim to be able to detect .5g pieces of gold at 20 inches with the Sand Shark. I would love to see a video of you actually doing it. Care to make it?

 

[gold fever pete]

Hey Hobbit, I have a Sand Shark, live in California and pulled out a gold ring that weighed 1.2 grams in January. I was in the surf a little above knee deep. the ring was about 12". Have you had your machine calibrated lately? I sent in my White's DFX awhile back. I had basically the same problem. Hope this helps. GFP HH

 

[hobbit]

Hey Hobbit, I have a Sand Shark, live in California and pulled out a gold ring that weighed 1.2 grams in January. I was in the surf a little above knee deep. the ring was about 12". Have you had your machine calibrated lately? I sent in my White's DFX awhile back. I had basically the same problem. Hope this helps. GFP HH

Thanks for the reply, Pete. Great job on the 1.2 gram ring. That's a pretty small one for, sure. Good to get a shout out from California, too. I lived out there for many years. Sometimes knee deep in California is no joke!!! I don't think it is a calibration issue. As a matter of fact, I know it is not. My Shark was actually sent back to Tesoro not long ago. It seems completly normal in every respect now. I am not questioning what you say at all, but it has always been very difficult for me to determine the depth of a target I dig in the surf. It is tough enough for me on dry land, but in the surf...it seems next to impossible to really say for sure how deep an object is recovered...Also, is the ring 14kt or more? The reason I ask is that the more silver content in an object, the deeper it can be detected. Mine picks up big gold and higher conductive stuff at 12 inches or so with no problem...

 

[Octopulse]

Hello Hobbit,

Well I don't normally post much on the forums but decided to add my view anyway.
I have used many PI's over the past 10 years or so so I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable on them. I have used them ranging from the Australian goldfields through to the beach which is now my main hunting.
In regard to pulse delay, this is the most important element in a PI's sensitivity to the smaller, fine gold rings such as diamond engagement rings. An operating delay of 10µs is most desirable in seeking them out but only if the salt water content allows it. Once the coil is wet then 10µs can be quite noisy. I used to have the Goldquest SS which has an adjustable pulse delay of 10µs to 40µs. The 10µs setting will pick up smaller gold rings that 20µs will not see.....this is simply a fact and anyone who thinks otherwise is 100% wrong. Now with the bigger gold rings, the pulse delay is not as critical. It is also possible to get an enhanced signal on big gold rings with a slower pulse delay. Using the Goldquest SS, it is easy to do tests on gold rings whilst tweaking the pulse delay (or REJECT setting on some PI machines). Because I am now a saltwater hunter, I have been lately using the Garrett SeaHunter Mark II. I believe the pulse delay is set around 15µs which suits me perfectly as I am in water from ankle deep to 6 feet. It is not as sensitive as my Goldquest on the small rings but it is as deep on average gold wedding bands. To your request regarding the Sand Shark, well I have done some tests comparing the units. I have never dug particularly small gold with the Sandshark as this is due to the 22µs operating pulse delay. The Sandshark appears to be very stable but this is due more to the 22µs knocking out saltwater response. There is no response on small gold ear-rings at all with the Sandshark, however, the SeaHunter will signal on them at a couple of inches and the Goldquest just a bit deeper again. On bigger gold, the detectors are reasonably close but the SeaHunter does have the edge. I am very impressed with the SeaHunter and it's overall sensitivity to small gold and also deeper, bigger gold. It is now my #1 machine for the saltwater.
Regards,
Tony.

PS I also firmly believe that the benchmark for a really deep target is about 15". This is for an average gold ring or clean US nickel.

As for 12" on small gold ear-rings.....you can hear me laughing from 10,000 miles away. 12" is good for an average wedding band !!!

 

[hobbit]

Hello Hobbit,

Well I don't normally post much on the forums but decided to add my view anyway.
I have used many PI's over the past 10 years or so so I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable on them. i have used them ranging from the Australian goldfields through to the beach which is now my main hunting.
In regard to pulse delay, this is the most important element in a PI's sensitivity to the smaller, fine gold rings such as diamond engagement rings. An operating delay of 10µs is most desirable in seeking them out but only if the salt water content allows it. Once the coil is wet then 10µs can be quite noisy. I used to have the Goldquest SS which has an adjustable pulse delay of 10µs to 40µs. The 10µs setting will pick up smaller gold rings that 20µs will not see.....this is simply a fact and anyone who thinks otherwise is 100% wrong. Now with the bigger gold rings, the pulse delay is not as critical. It is also possible to get an enhanced signal on big gold rings with a slower pulse delay. Using the Goldquest SS, it is easy to do tests on gold rings whilst tweaking the pulse delay (or REJECT setting on some PI machines). Because I am now a saltwater hunter, I have been lately using the Garrett SeaHunter Mark II. I believe the pulse delay is set around 15µs which suits me perfectly as I am in water from ankle deep to 6 feet. It is not as sensitive as my Goldquest on the small rings but it is as deep on average gold wedding bands. To your request regarding the Sand Shark, well I have done some tests comparing the units. I have never dug particularly small gold with the Sandshark as this is due to the 22µs operating pulse delay. The Sandshark appears to be very stable but this is due more to the 22µs knocking out saltwater response. There is no response on small gold ear-rings at all with the Sandshark, however, the SeaHunter will signal on them at a couple of inches and the Goldquest just a bit deeper again. On bigger gold, the detectors are reasonably close but the SeaHunter does have the edge. I am very impressed with the SeaHunter and it's overall sensitivity to small gold and also deeper, bigger gold. It is now my #1 machine for the saltwater.
Regards,
Tony.

Thanks for the reply, Tony. I have never owned a Sea-Hunter, but some serious salvage guys I know use them and love them. I have heard nothing but good things about them. I actually didn't know their delay was set that low!!! I may have to look into getting one. I know they are very reasonably priced and have interchangable coils, which is always a good thing. It sounds like your experience with the Sand Shark is similar to mine. Are there as many hot chicks in Australia as I hear there are?

 

[hobbit]

PS I also firmly believe that the benchmark for a really deep target is about 15". This is for an average gold ring or clean US nickel.

As for 12" on small gold ear-rings.....you can hear me laughing from 10,000 miles away. 12" is good for an average wedding band !!!

Well, that's what I have always thought. And that is what I have always heard from really knowlegeable folks like Clive Clynick, Andy Sabisch, Bill Crabtree and Eric Foster, for instance. And that has always been what I have seen in the field...

 

[Octopulse]

Well of course there are hot chicks in Australia....I married one (looks over shoulder).
I too thought that the SeaHunter would have a slower delay but I compared target response (gold and seawater) against other PI machines. On a scope, then it might read 16 or 17µs but it is surprisingly sensitive for what is a diving detector. Typical diving PI's start at about 25µs up to about 50µs. Having the interchangeable coils and headphones is an absolute blessing !
I don't think I could go back to hardwired again.
Interesting threads recently...I shall watch them with a keen eye. I'm amazed how people will defend their machines and sometimes imagined capability. I have moved detectors that I proved to myself were not up to the task or weren't quite suitable for my hunting environment.
Thanks,
Tony.

 

[Octopulse]

Yes, those stupid depth claims of 18" on this and 20" on that are from the "land of make believe".
If they want to believe it for themselves then fine but what about the newcomers with these expectations.
......moderators should stop this spread of misinformation !!

My last 2 foot target was a full can of beer........

I knew it was way beyond a coin sized target due to signal profile and how deep I was digging.
I'd built up quite a thirst by the time I got to it so all was not lost.

 

[Smoogle]

Hi Hobbit, I'm nearly finished my first 7-8 months with the SS and I've scored heaps with it - but I too have never got a "tiny" piece of gold. My smallest being this .8g ring pictured (out of 15 SS found gold items so far). Not being a smarty pants but why even bother with the minute marginal stuff - I'm happy to be pulling out corkers - I guess it is the challenge? Also happy my SS will pull beach coins / rings from deep in the dry / wet and I support claims that low and slow swinging can reveal so much more down there( I always speed up in the want to cover more ground - and have to conciously slow myself down). I reckon three quick successive scoops down in the water is also a deep place when executed properly. Also many of those murky days when that tiny target just keeps slipping through the scoop - they could have been earing studs etc?
Having said this I can't wait to get my hands on a CZ-21 or Excal for some particularly trashy spots I know are hiding the gold (I've moon scaped them many times and still for the majority of finds, in the top layer of trash / recent drops). I'd love to have a crack with the Seahunter too. So take pity - you guys collect the small ones and leave the biggies for the SS owners and all will be happy? I'm a noob so all I do really know is that I have paid back my machine twice over within a year (18ct rings are so nice) - so it was good value and best of all the old Tesoro cliche "guaranteed for life". All the best Hobbit - make the video and if I ever find a yellow tiny tot I'll PM ya' HH

 

[hamiddetecting]

Yes all metal detector PI dont detect small gold. Thats the true. So Sovereign and Excalibur both with search coil 8''. Very sensive of fine gold.

 

[hobbit]

Lol!!! I have been there on the beer cans. A full one at 2 feet is like a gift from god. I'll bet it was nice and cool, too.

 

[hobbit]

Only one reason it concerns me smoogle: gold chains. I know that the individual links in a chain do not 'add up'. I know it doesn't matter if you ball them, stretch them out, whatever. They must be down there, but I can't find them with any of my beach PI's unless they have large clasps or something larger attached. When I read that someone who I have every reason to believe finds them routinely at an AVERAGE of 12 inches, it gets my attention.

 

[DewGuru]

 

[fir469]

I owned a SS for a short period of time and sold it due to the fact I almost drowned detecting with it. I did however find earring studs with it, not very deep maybe an inch to 3 and this was in fresh water. The response was very tiny and narrow similar to a double beep on a bobby pin. I was a newbie with it and dug everything. It nabbed many tiny pieces of foil so I see no reason why it wouldn't hit the fine gold, but depth I'm sure would be very weak, expecting in the 1-3" range.

 

[Can Slaw]

Hobbit,
I am glad you made this post and i am looking forward to "real" reply's from other users that have not, shall we say, brainwashed themselves. We know one Sand Shark user that has found cat collars in China with the collars still on the cats. I am looking forward to hearing from other Sand Shark users in real conditions.

 

[donlor]

I don’t talk about tests - real life experience is what I can tell you about. i’ve found 3 rings & 1 earing under 1 gm - all .9 or .8 gm - never anything smaller.
Those who claim that they found them weighing .3 gm with the shark in salt water - I doubt it. Why I say I doubt it is simple - in the water you use a scoop - most nobody uses a scoop in the water that would keep something that small in it.
As for trying to find .3gm gold in the water - not what I am looking for. I hope never have to resort to 3gm gold in the water unless I’m nugget hunting in a shallow stream!
Now an important distinction - the 4 pieces of gold that I found that were under 1 gm were all from 3 - 6" deep. They were rings & earnings & they sounded off loud & clear.
As for ultimate depth on targets I’ve scooped with the shark - DEEP

 

[Can Slaw]

I got curious if my PI would pass the test you tried on your SS. Did the same test you did on the SS with my Sea Hunter Mk II. It was in the backyard, not on an open beach and I do have some electrical interference. I took a thin 3 gram 14k hoop earring and the Sea Hunter also would not hit it no matter what setting I used. I thought that was strange that it wouldn't sound off as the Sea Hunter I thought was pretty sensitive. Now I wish I could remember which detector found that earring...I think it was the GT.

 

[dc426]

2.76 grams of 18K today one full scoop deep. Works for me.
DC