2007 "State of the Industry Message"

[dirtfisher]

Thanks to everyone who responded to last years industry summary. Things have not changed much. Whites still has not come up with a really good mid-priced detector . The Prisms and M6 "series" are really not that popular and people are hanging on to the old "Pro Series" detectors like they are made of gold!

Garrett is still producing very heavy units that are way too overloaded with features that are exciting but not really needed by the veteran detectorists. And they should really paint that little yellow detector green!

. Fisher's future is still unclear. We still don't know what is really going on so E-Bay is full of Fisher detectors at present.

Tesoro is , well,..still Tesoro ( Tesoro means Treasure in good old English) and their lifetime warranty is really the best thing going for them.

Bounty Hunter has a very promising future if they don't mess things up with the Fisher line. They still have the best customer service in the business. Plus we really need to see something beyond the Time Ranger soon.

Conclusion: All companies should listen to the middle-aged American detectorists that dominate this hobby. They want good detectors with sensible names and practical features. And this is the way I see it. This is dirtfisher signing off and Happy Hunting to all!

 

[Beale]

No comment on Minelab? Just wondering, Beale.

 

[dirtfisher]

Wow .. I forgot about Minelab. I never see any of those units out in the field where I live so (out of sight,... out of mind). I really don't consider myself an expert on these things. I am just a veteran hobbyist with over 25 years experience. Minelabs are for people who are willing to spend the big bucks for great quality detectors. If a person wanted to look for gold then I would recommend Minelab over all the others. I also forgot Troy detectors. Many people don't realize that Troy was building in cooperation with Fisher as I understand it. So things may have changed with them. They make a very good detector. I was thinking about getting a Troy until Fisher was bought out.
Another great company was Compass until they had the company fire and things went downhill from there. My main concern is the Whites company to which I presently am the loyalist to and prefer over all the others. I am concerned though because the Prisms and Matrix were such a disappointment. The DFX and XLT don't appeal to me due to the programming scenario of the things. I don't need the MXT because all I do is coin shoot and jewelry hunt. I know that detectors are always being discontinued for whatever reason. But little things like the way the detector looks, the name of the thing, etc are as important as performance to me. Thanks for asking and as always Happy Hunting! DF.

 

[jim tn]

I think many of the detector mfgs have been setting on their laurals, so to speak, for quite some time now and these same mfgs are now having to play catch up with Fisher as the result of their F series detectors. Playing catch up, of course, is just my humble opinion, but as a F75 swinger, I am completly sold on Fisher as a very highly viable co. at the present. HH jim tn

 

[Gila Marc]

I'm going to chime in on this one. I use a White's MXT mostly, and I can't think of any possibility for a better all-around unit. It is sensitive enough to pull out the smallest bits of gold jewelry, coins and is a quite good relic machine. Only drawback I have found is it's not nearly as deep-seeking as my Minelab Quattro. The Quattro will find lots of signals as deep as I care to dig, but I have a tough time putting up with all the consarned noise! The MXT has a total of three sounds (in relic mode) but this Quattro must have a good dozen or so....and they all seem to want to compete for loudest and most annoying! But I admit, if I go out after relics, it does it's job!

Actually, the deepest and most sensitive machine I have owned is a Tesoro Lobo SuperTraq. It will find semi-microscopic pieces of screenwire, the tinest gold earring, etc. But It is FAR TOO SENSITIVE to use in parks around here. For a gold or relic hunter out in the hills it is unsurpassed, in my opinion. Tesoro could have maybe done a bit better on it's discrimination circuitry. If the LST only had a two-tone "ferrous/nonferrous" signal I would never need another detector.

Marc

 

[Ron from Michigan]

I would put a Sovereign up against any latest and greatest for park hunting.The old CZs are still some of the best units around even against the twins(T2&F75).

 

[Steve(MS)]

and not necessarily to make a better detector, only to come up with more detectors that will compete with what the competition is putting out. Think about it, are the newer detectors deeper than the older ones or do the newer ones really "smoke" the older ones in terms of separation, masking or discrimination? Ok, I am still hoping one will be released that is truly superior in some form or the other but I ain't holding my breath. I have a few older discontinued ones that I am holding on to. I hope the brands aren't holding out some secret new technology so they can maximize the profits, naw, they wouldn't do that, would they?

 

[Beale]

Well I am very new to this great hobby and like see new stuff. I will say this I do not know how old or new the X-Terra series is, but my X-70 is a very good unit. For a newb it is easy to use, and also has some very (to me) complicated features as well. It is nice to be able to have lots of freq options, even if it means more coils.

I do not know much about the industry as a whole. I do know though that another company is doing some different things also. D e t e c t o r P r o with the earphones that have all the detector functions. To my eye at least this is a different angle of approach.

I also think we may be on the edge of some major new stuff. New chips, better interfaces, and quicker responses. It just needs to happen, and IMO it will, soon, Beale.

 

[Ron from Michigan]

n/t

 

[jmaryt]

the answer is NO!.they CAN'T hold out because ,in my opinion the ONLY thing left for them to do is to REALLY separate gold from foil,and be able to EFFECTIVELY discriminate out aluminum from coins right next to each other,AND to discriminate aluminum with a coin DIRECTLY under the aluminum!..when this breakthrough occurs in the industry,then all bets are off!..they will have accomplished it all,because certainly DEPTH is NO longer an issue!..just my nickel's" worth!
i believe right now as i speak,they are trying to do just that,because the manufacturers KNOW these benefits are really what the more experienced hunters want!
let's be perfectly candid,the number one issue that we all face is the amount of metal "crap" that we HAVE to contend with on just about EVERY site we hunt!..i personally feel thare is a "ton" of coins still left to be found that are hidden amongst the crap metal!..depth?..you got plenty of depth,and i'll further state that most of these good coins are no deeper than 6" to surface just about in every site!..hell!..i have been hunting in new england for thirty years,with 350 to 400 years of history,and rarely do i find coins buried deeper than 7",and i'm talking king george coppers,reales,and colonial coins!,and i use one of the deepest detecting machines available!..the xl-pro!..(go figure!)


(h.h!)
j.t.

 

[Steve(MS)]

I agree with you in part about depth however there are plenty of ways for objects to get deeper than what VLF's can now detect effectively. On the problem with finding nonferrous items in trash, especially iron objects like nails, motion detectors have a long way to go before we can say without reservation that we have hunted a place out. However I think that expecting a detector to signal on a coin under a alum can is close to impossible with current or foreseeable technology. I think 12" on coins in regular type ground where current detectors may not give a signal after 8" or so would be quite enough. Yes, I agree, most coins are within the first 6" or so, yet I have dug clad coins at 7" or 8" and found silver coins almost on top of the ground so there is no way to know what the depth of a coin will be by how long it has been in the ground. How do coins get deep in the ground, these include, mole holes, livestock pushing in the ground that is muddy, fill in, heavy machinery doing dirt work, dirt washing down to lower sections of ground, these and others not mentioned can be factors no matter what part of the country one is in. If you are finding any coins on the fringe of the detectors usable depth then it doesn't take much imagination that there are coins still deeper, yes I do understand there may not be as many by percentage. So I am in total agreement with you on the more trashy areas and the need for a detector to see around some of that stuff to get the goodies, the more trash, the more traffic, the more likely something good is there.
I think my main idea was that detector technology is static for now and has been for some time, that is the reason some of us haven't sold our old ones and went out and replaced them with the newer ones, much like many do with computers, etc.
It is not that I think the newer ones are totally inferior or such but they really don't stand out to the point where the older ones are now all obsolete.
Keep in mind this is just my opinion.
BTW, Whites did "hold back" a few decades ago before they released a new technology but I doubt any brand will do that now, it might mean that they would loose sales!
I like your choice of detector too!
HH

 

[Doctorcoinz]

A common trick that many detector makers have been guilty of is bringing out a different new model detector which is actually the same detector apart from a different name and number and maybe a slightly different control box. C scope were experts at this trick , they bring a different detector out that performs the same as the old model the only difference seems to be in the name of the new model. Fisher may have done this also with some CZ detectors. Whites dfx seems to have been around forever with no new top range model on the horizon. I think the explorers from minelab are the biggest change in recent years from what we have been used to. New detectors are also built like plastic toys and look like they cost next to nothing to make. The detectors built today will not be in use in 20 years time like some of the old analogue tanks still in use (and still finding good stuff).. We need detectors to be made that work better on iron infested and coke infested sites thats the number 1 improvement in my opinion.. Some new detectors look like they cost peanuts to make , i am surprised people still buy some of the modern toy like crap.. I personally think nothing is going to get any better than what we already have with modern detectors. In 20 years time we will still be getting the same depths as we are today. Better target ID is something i would like to see on a new gen detector , something like target shaping id. I doubt it will ever come in my life time though!.. Metal detector summary = We are still where we was 10 years ago on depth. The future detectors = same depth as todays detectors but with more gimmicks. Depressing news for all in the hobby........

 

[Uncle Willy]

Depth is a much misaligned term used for bragging sessions and marketing hype. The vast majority of dropped coins and goodies are well within the reach of most machines out there and are not buried halfway to China just because they are old. When they come out with a detector that displays a 3-D image of what's in the ground then we will have made it to the peak. The government has a mine detector that will do that now.

Bill

 

[Uncle Willy]

Yeah they do. Garrett just doubled the size of their factory off the profits from the Ace 250 and will employ another 120 people or so.

Bill

 

[jmaryt]

hi steve!
i am not sure if the engineers will ever be able to effectively be able to eliminate the overloading, and masking characteristics of aluminum in a trashy setting!..it may be impossible because the electronic "signatures" of the metals are almost identical,and,of course THIS IS where the problem manifests itself!..i sincerely believe that MOST good targets in trash are fairly shallow,and indeed,ARE recoverable!..knowing this gives me a physcological boost,and keeps me in the hunt!

(h.h!)
j.t.

 

[jmaryt]

i agree in prinicipal with what you have said,and may i add that people MUST understand that metal detecting as a hobby for the MOST part is practised by older people,and as these people either lose interest,or pass away,then there are fewer veteren detectorists to sell to!..a shrinking market!..as it becomes clear that younger people have different intersts,then this economic climate affects the industry,and sales in general.as a result of this continuing erosion of the market.all of this translates to lower capital overall,and limits manufaturers ability to r&d ,and produce new equipment!..not a good thing in my view!

(h.h!)
j.t.

 

[Beale]

Have you ever wondered why "in general" the younger generation do not MD? IMO it has a lot to do with no instant success for the most part. The young have the games, and all the othe new toys. Hunting for coins is fun but not to them. It actually involves work, and getting out of the house.

This is all IMO, Beale.

 

[Elton]

Well I am easy to please..All I want is a detector that will go 15" on a dime..center it for me, and dig it up.
It can be green, blue, orange, or what ever, if it can do that. I will buy it !!! Just kidding of course..I have heard that detectors and frequency's are limited by the government. That in fact our current detectors are at the max now allowed. Since it is radio waves in essence I can think this is true.Maybe we need to get a movement started that will take it up a notch. Who decides what the max is??? How do we get that changed and where do you start....I am sure a certain frequency would go through Iron and other masking items now in the ground.............Minelab uses 28 I think..what would happen with 56..Just an idea and I know it sounds stupid...But Mr. Fisher probably sounded stupid when he proposed the first metal detector with one frequency while working on radar. Heck if i remember right Minelab sounded silly with their first one that used 17 frequency's. So lets keep after all of them and maybe they can make it better and deeper.It could only be a frequency away from great...

 

[Steve(MS)]

You know Garretts' Sea hunter claims to be able to disc out most pulltabs and still get gold rings but it can only be used on beaches because iron would give a positive signal. I am sure it doesn't work as well as the literature says either but makes me wonder if pulse does see alum different than VLF's. It appears to me that current Technology has already peaked in what can be designed to do better than what is already available. I think you are right too about the market in that the younger folks are not really interested in detecting as a whole, there seems to be an aging consumer base. If one looks around the forums it is clear for most part the same people are posting so there is definitely a narrow audience involved in detecting regularly which in a way is good for those still detecting. My guess is most new purchases on detectors are made then used a few times and then put in the closet, the manufacturers don't mind as long as they are selling them though. Good deal for us, more to find!
HH

 

[Gila Marc]

I agree on the 3D imaging. Any new technology is going to have to be NEW technology to make any real improvements. The present state of GPR is not too good, in my opinion. It is overpriced, underdeveloped and the actual images are the pits (no pun intended), so far as I have seen. Any image that needs a professionally trained interpreter is not practical for general use. It would be nice to see imaging based on a system similar to the pixel-type imagery of digital cameras, but able to send and receive signals into and back from the ground. That's a lot to ask, but perhaps possible in the future.

I do believe soon the VLF, and probably even PI technology will be obsolete. What will follow is anyone's guess.

Marc