A
Anonymous
Guest
I hope you don't mind this multi-forum post, but recent results from hunting 'typical' city sites helps points out some of the ways we can each achieve success. And, I might add, do so with and without Target ID and/or Tone ID.
I am wrapping up my 38th year in this wonderful hobby, and along the way I have always tried to help the hobbyist gain confidence and skills such that their command of a detector and improved field techniques might advance them to the level of a detectorist. In other words, let the beginner/newcomer enjoy the thrill of the search and understanding of the basics so that they might attain a level of experience where every detecting opportunity will be a rewarding detecting challenge.
There are so many metal detecting forums that I could never get a post on them all, and some of these I now post on are not regulars in my "favorites" list. What I have observed over the years as a hobbyist, dealer, marketing rep, distributor and E-Forum contributor is that people continue to get caught up in all the "latest & greatest" advertising. Frequently, some of the ads and/or postings fall more to the side of "hype" than anticipated reality.
Also, I am sure we all see a lot of subdued rivalry. By this, I mean that you will often read a few series of posts where contributors push the merits of thier chosen detector's Target ID or Tone ID, even to the point of belittling those who use detectors without such features. Perhaps they are overly strong in the way they promote their preference for a lot of manual control Vs the more simplistic "turn-on-and-go" approach.
Then, too, we read about the many who have tried all sorts of new detectors when they come out, and have even spent many months using the more "sophisticated" models, only to part with them and return to a non-metered model, and rely more on the raw detector performance for a basic approach to detecting.
In both cases, we have those who strongly oppose the other view. We also have some who can appreciate the merits of BOTH lines of thought. This post is NOT about any particular make or model. It is about supplying a little material for consideration of your approach to successful metal detecting. Something to ponder as you think about how you have been hunting, and what you might like to do, or try, at some future date.
I am going to reference two people who I have witnessed enjoy recent success. It is only coincidence that they were each using a Minelab model. What is noteworthy, I believe, is what has resulted from their two differing approaches to detecting. I have long held that there are basically two categories you would fall into based upon your patience & tolerance, as well as a particualr goal for your efforts. Those two approaches are:
"Beep-DIG!"... A method where you set a minimum discriminate level for a given site, and then hunt with the determination to cover a site, recover whats there, and do so by listening for a desired "Beep," then "DIG"ging it up to determine what it is, and if it is a desired target or junk. The good oldfashioned approach to metal detecting.
"Selective-Analyzing"... An approach to hunting a site where the operator relies on the audio and/or visual Target ID to determine if a target is worthy of recovery. It also includes any method of notch discrimination, or manually advancing the discriminate control to try to analyze a target response. You are selectively going after certain targets or classes of targets, and/or aggressively anayzing responses to classify a target and limit the number of recovery efforts you will make.
Chris is a very good friend who started out with a White's XLT as a first detector. He's been at it for almost six years. He might have got his XLT seven years ago at Christmas time, but he's only been at it for six years. Let me explain.
Chris happens to live in an older part of downtown Portland, Oregon which places him in short drive distance from many old parks and schools. Some of those were visually gridded off and worked quite hard for the first few years. Chris is NOT into "flash money" and could easily do without all the modern coinage. His goals have been to find the older coins, especially silver, and he has concentrated on older sites. I seriously doubt if he has spent more than 1
I am wrapping up my 38th year in this wonderful hobby, and along the way I have always tried to help the hobbyist gain confidence and skills such that their command of a detector and improved field techniques might advance them to the level of a detectorist. In other words, let the beginner/newcomer enjoy the thrill of the search and understanding of the basics so that they might attain a level of experience where every detecting opportunity will be a rewarding detecting challenge.
There are so many metal detecting forums that I could never get a post on them all, and some of these I now post on are not regulars in my "favorites" list. What I have observed over the years as a hobbyist, dealer, marketing rep, distributor and E-Forum contributor is that people continue to get caught up in all the "latest & greatest" advertising. Frequently, some of the ads and/or postings fall more to the side of "hype" than anticipated reality.
Also, I am sure we all see a lot of subdued rivalry. By this, I mean that you will often read a few series of posts where contributors push the merits of thier chosen detector's Target ID or Tone ID, even to the point of belittling those who use detectors without such features. Perhaps they are overly strong in the way they promote their preference for a lot of manual control Vs the more simplistic "turn-on-and-go" approach.
Then, too, we read about the many who have tried all sorts of new detectors when they come out, and have even spent many months using the more "sophisticated" models, only to part with them and return to a non-metered model, and rely more on the raw detector performance for a basic approach to detecting.
In both cases, we have those who strongly oppose the other view. We also have some who can appreciate the merits of BOTH lines of thought. This post is NOT about any particular make or model. It is about supplying a little material for consideration of your approach to successful metal detecting. Something to ponder as you think about how you have been hunting, and what you might like to do, or try, at some future date.
I am going to reference two people who I have witnessed enjoy recent success. It is only coincidence that they were each using a Minelab model. What is noteworthy, I believe, is what has resulted from their two differing approaches to detecting. I have long held that there are basically two categories you would fall into based upon your patience & tolerance, as well as a particualr goal for your efforts. Those two approaches are:
"Beep-DIG!"... A method where you set a minimum discriminate level for a given site, and then hunt with the determination to cover a site, recover whats there, and do so by listening for a desired "Beep," then "DIG"ging it up to determine what it is, and if it is a desired target or junk. The good oldfashioned approach to metal detecting.
"Selective-Analyzing"... An approach to hunting a site where the operator relies on the audio and/or visual Target ID to determine if a target is worthy of recovery. It also includes any method of notch discrimination, or manually advancing the discriminate control to try to analyze a target response. You are selectively going after certain targets or classes of targets, and/or aggressively anayzing responses to classify a target and limit the number of recovery efforts you will make.
Chris is a very good friend who started out with a White's XLT as a first detector. He's been at it for almost six years. He might have got his XLT seven years ago at Christmas time, but he's only been at it for six years. Let me explain.
Chris happens to live in an older part of downtown Portland, Oregon which places him in short drive distance from many old parks and schools. Some of those were visually gridded off and worked quite hard for the first few years. Chris is NOT into "flash money" and could easily do without all the modern coinage. His goals have been to find the older coins, especially silver, and he has concentrated on older sites. I seriously doubt if he has spent more than 1