"Age old" question re-visited"!!!

[D&P-OR]

IYO, what is the biggest (and most prevalent) problem ---Targets (coins) at extreme depths or targets (coins) that are masked with trash?-----I realize that there are MANY variables but am speaking--as a general rule---the most often encountered problem to deal with---coins at depth, or coins in trash?----I'm referring to older coins---not newer clad coins.-----This subject has been "kicked around" plenty but I believe it's a problem that we as coin shooters are ever increasingly haveing to deal with.----Any of us that have been around awhile well know that by & large---the "easy" targets (older coins) are for the most part long gone (sure, there are exceptions).----This question could apply to various targets we are searching for but I used (older) coins as the target in question.----- Whattcha think??-------Del

 

[mrwilburino]

Coins in trash. There will always be deeper detectors but a machine that will truly "see" past iron? Doubt it.

 

[Monte]

IYO, what is the biggest (and most prevalent) problem ---Targets (coins) at extreme depths or targets (coins) that are masked with trash?

Even just this basic question leave a bit to ponder, such as deeper coin that are also masked by trash. The part I was going to add, to sort of separate the 'trash' question, you kind of answered by saying the goal is older coins. The first question, with regard to older coins, is if we are referring to a modern-use location, such as an old park or school where we might find older coins, but we might also encounter more modern trash, or if the "older coins" are associated with searching an older-use site, such as a ghost town, abandoned homestead, etc.

I say this because it does tend to separate the 'trash' issue, and also can bring about a difference in who hunts the site and how they generally hunt for coins. Dealing with 'trash' is probably the most concern any of us have because while we might not know the depth a coin might be at any particular site, we do know that any coin can be 'masked' by any type of trash. So, here are my general thoughts to address your good question:

If the site in question is a current-use older site and it contains more modern trash, such as ring-pull tabs, rectangular pry-tabs, aluminum screw caps, all sorts and sizes of foil from gum and candy wrappers, those blasted ketchup and taco sauce packets, and more higher-conductive 'trash', then there is Problem #1.

Problem #1 is that many/most 'coin hunting' hobbyists do not want to recover all the trash and don't like to deal with it much at all. They might use high Discrimination setting or even Notch Discrimination, and most search with visual Target ID so they are bound to refer to their display on every hit. If it locks-on as a coin, they go for it. If it gives an 'iffy' response or very off-reading to be a coin, and that was caused by target masking due to any form of trash, they generally ignore it and press on for the 'for sure" coin read-out.

So, Problem #1 is a combination of modern higher-conductive trash and many/most hobbyists relying on a rock-solid TID before they go after a target. The result? Target masking by trash is a very big problem with success.

Then there is Problem #2. This one involves older sites that are not in use and haven't been for quite some time. They are pretty much void of all the modern trash, but places like farmsteads, homesteads, ghost towns, out-of-use resorts and recreation areas, etc., are usually more plagued by iron-based trash. Iron has a different effect on the electromagnetic field than the non-ferrous coins we're after and can more easily mask a desired target. What those types of sites call for, to address Problem #2, is the ability to set the Discrimination at the minimum or no more than ONLY iron nail rejection. Once accomplished, recover ALL good hits and questionable hits. Just a different approach for some of us.

----I realize that there are MANY variables but am speaking--as a general rule---the most often encountered problem to deal with---coins at depth, or coins in trash?----I'm referring to older coins---not newer clad coins.-----This subject has been "kicked around" plenty but I believe it's a problem that we as coin shooters are ever increasingly having to deal with.

We are increasingly having to deal with more higher-conductive modern trash when hunting the current-use sites. While they are getting thinned out on coins (new or old) they are also building up more and more modern junk, and that's our problem.

Unused older sites are not getting junkier, they are just getting harder to find and access, and still call for us to use only enough Disc. to knock out iron nails and then recover ALL good and iffy responses.

----Any of us that have been around awhile well know that by & large---the "easy" targets (older coins) are for the most part long gone (sure, there are exceptions).----This question could apply to various targets we are searching for but I used (older) coins as the target in question

Sad-but-true, most of the older coins in commonly-worked sites have been thinned out, to be sure. There might be some deeper coins to be found, but modern design still limits some in their success because they expect or anticipate a good lock-on Target ID on deeper coins, but most detectors are only going to be correct, or close to, on surface to mid-depth targets. We can find the older coins that are deeper IF we use a decent detectror and set it up for the best 'at-depth' performance, then work a site patiently and recover ample targets to do our best, but NOT expect really good TID.

So, regardless of the coin's depth in the soil, "target masking" has to be the biggest opponent we face. Gaining better depth is possible, but not if there is metal (good or bad) in the way. that's why we should all own and use probably 2 detectors, and have an assortment of coils for our detectors so that they can give the best performance possible.

Monte

 

[jim tn]

It depends on the site, or kind of site. Over all, I would say masking is our biggest problem, but at the beach it would probably be depth. Providing someone is willing and able to dig 2' deep targets. HH jim tn

 

[oldcoon]

[size=small]I agree that masking is our biggest problem.

Speaking for myself, I would rather have a detector with the discrimination capabilities to see through trash to a depth of six or eight inches than a machine capable of reaching down 2 feet on pure raw power. [/size]​