A question for Monte......

[slingshot]

I own 3 different brands of metal detectors and marvel at some of the posts I read. Can you tell me if I hunt in moderately mineralized areas with my discrimination set at just above nails, on two of them, the other at bottlecaps, at local parks, schools, tot lots,etc. why I should buy another metal detector to have a better chance at finding a ring? I find the tiniest of charms and the flakiest pieces of metal as it is, and I try to use each detector, per your suggestions, at the correct sweep speed and disc level for each site. Maybe my frustration comes from findings tons of fake rings, but I get the impression if I don't have the right detector, I'm dead in the water from the getgo. For what it's worth, I have a Silver umax, an Ace 250, and a BH Tracker, Wal mart version that I keep in the car in case a site unexpectedly shows up. I just can't fathom any other reason than operator skill and good technique. Thanks.

 

[goodmore]

I am not Monte ( by a long shot ) when it comes to detecting. But I have a comment. Operator skill and good technique go a very long way in detecting. You are talking about two huge factors right there. Time spent hunting, research and ground conditions are another few factors. The detector is a piece of the puzzle, but just a piece.

 

[Flintstone]

Hi slingshot, not Monty, but just thinking maybe there are no gold rings there. I have hunted areas that had fake rings and no gold. the area was like low income, people didn't buy gold, so that comes in to play also. Just keep trying your detectors should find them.. Good Luck Dean

 

[BarberBill]

Not Monte either, but the detectors you mention should find rings if you hunt with little or no discrimination, and you dig most everything -- that's assuming that rings are there in the first place. And, you never know -- I've hit more rings this summer than I have in my previous years of detecting. Some fairly good ones and some cheapies. Patience and persistence will pay off over the long haul.
HH
BB

 

[slingshot]

Thanks, guys. Had to go to work today and just got back. I've never seen so many posts about target masking, using the machine with the right frequency, having to search in all metal tohave a chance, etc. I just can't imagine with the tiny objects I'm finding of missing a ring. Truth is, I've found a lot of rings, but they're not real gold-and maybe that's where the frustration and question marks arise.

 

[dahut]

Thanks, guys. Had to go to work today and just got back. I've never seen so many posts about target masking, using the machine with the right frequency, having to search in all metal tohave a chance, etc. I just can't imagine with the tiny objects I'm finding of missing a ring. Truth is, I've found a lot of rings, but they're not real gold-and maybe that's where the frustration and question marks arise.

I don't believe you will miss the rings if they are there. In fact, most rings act as a single loop inductor to a detectors coil field, meaning they couple the signal very well an respond soundly. Whether they will be GOLD or not, is a crapshoot.

Some of the smallest rings, like a childs gold ring, can come in like foil. I found one last week, a 10K pinkie ring, that hit dead on foil. SO it behooves you to search with low DISC. But I have never found a ring that reacts lower. Chains perhaps, but not rings.
In my experience ALL METAL is probably not the answer for rings.

Trash masking is a problem, however. It is a fact that most rings will be found were the largest concentrations of people have been. That means there will also be a lot of trash. You will need the equipment, knowledge and positive attitude to deal with these conditions. In fact the more you can know about the trash you encounter, the better. This is one reason why I favor the XLT for this kind of specialized hunting - it offers a wealth of target information to help you understand the many alloys represented in trash. And if you know how trash responds, anything that is different is going to be, by default, good.

But look around at the jewelry that is available today. How much of it is "junk" compared to the good stuff? What is the ratio? I'll wager the junk far outweighs the good stuff. So, it stands to reason the jewelry losses will represent that junk:ratio.

Another way of looking at this is to follow the money. Where do the people with money, the ones who are likliest to lose GOLD jewelry... where do they go to be physically active? Where do their kids play soccer? Where do they play rugby and other adult sports? Where do they go to sunbathe and swim? Its about working the odds.

I hunt an athletic complex in the higher class section of town. The folks there have 3 cars, $400 bikes, new jogging suits to run in and so on.
I reckon if gold is to be lost in any quantity near my home, it is going to be lost by them.

PS Another group of gold friendly people are Latino's. If you can hunt behind them, you can often do some good. But mind the neighborhood. Sometimes they are kinda rough.



s is not easy; if it were everyone would be doing it

 

[Monte]

I own 3 different brands of metal detectors and marvel at some of the posts I read.

I constantly marvel at some of the posts I read. I read some that are filled with excitement of a newcomer making a "first" find, such as a silver coin or Indian Head cent. many by those either new to the hobby or just trying to figure out a new detector or coil with very typical questions. Some with interesting tales about a site they located. Then there are those that comment of coins found at rather impressive depths. All sorts of interesting posts.

Can you tell me if I hunt in moderately mineralized areas with my discrimination set at just above nails, on two of them, the other at bottlecaps, at local parks, schools, tot lots,etc. why I should buy another metal detector to have a better chance at finding a ring?

A few things in this one:

Are you hunting in highly mineralized ground? What type of ground make-up is it? If you ARE in very iron mineralized ground, such as black sand or pea gravel, etc., then you want to use very minimal discrimination. You also want to sweep the search coil as slow as possible when using a 2-filter type detector.

If your detector allows you to adjust a variable discriminate control to the point where you are just rejecting iron nails, then you ought to be doing okay on most smaller gold jewelry. I wouldn't use a discriminate setting as high as one to reject bottle caps, and would only want to eliminate iron.

If you're hoping to find a ring at a park, school or tot lot, then I am sure you will. If you're hoping to find a GOLD ring at one of them, then you're going to have to recover a lot of junk rings, foil, pull tabs, eraser tops, and all sorts of targets that respond similar to various types and sizes of gold rings and gold jewelry.

Sometimes it is not necessarily the particular metal detector we use, the the settings, coil presentation/technique, and the sear ch coil size that can help or hinder our results.

I find the tiniest of charms and the flakiest pieces of metal as it is, and I try to use each detector, per your suggestions, at the correct sweep speed and disc level for each site.

If you're finding tiny, lower-conductive stuff, then you'll probably find the better jewelry items. My suggestion with what you're using would be to have the Silver

 

[slingshot]

Thanks for your time, Monte. You and David gave me a couple of tips that I had not thought about and the others gave me the confidence boost. Thanks, everyone.