Can't Make Up My Mind On What Detector To Use

[D&P-OR]

Willee & I were just trying to make a joke Sven.

Is that all????----And I thought my 15 was a lot!
You think you got problems deciding ...
All those were part of Carl Moreland's collection, a collector does not necessarily use what he collects.

 

[Metaldetectorguydiggindeep]

The compadre loves jewlery. Any tesoro is good on small stuff.

 

[Monte]

First thing I would like to mention is what kind of detector I have. (1)- Mark 1 Teknetics (2) AT PRO (3) Compadre (4) Mojave (5) and soon I will be getting a Tesoro golden sabre.

And interesting group of models from the latter '80s to current, and some I like and other I don't care for.

Now I know I'm getting old and all and my mind isn't what it use to be lol. Anyway what I want to do is find some gold rings and chains .I'm actually kind of tired of digging up clad coins and zinc pennies. So out of all the detectors I have which one would the forum pick to find the gold with.

So, if you want to concentrate on finding lower-conductive gold rings, chains, pendants, etc., and avoid modern clad and zinc cents, I think you're #1 mission is to be more selective on the sites you search. Select those that more typically might have lost jewelry, and avoid high-traffic modern coin-loss locations.

Then, if someone gave me that model assortment to select from, and presuming all mentioned models are functioning properly, I would keep TWO (2) of them and get rid of the others. Which two?

The Teknetics Mark 1 w/standard 7¼" Concentric coil and the Tesoro Mojave w/standard 7" Concentric coil.

All the models you have are of the slow-motion/quick-response design and will work quite well with a slow and methodical search that allows for proper overlapping and comfortable, casual hunting.

If I had those two, and parted with all the others, I would then invest in one detector to complement the Mark 1 and Mojave that might be new, or possibly an older model ,that uses the so-called 3-Filter or 4-Filter circuitry design. That would allow for a moderate to faster sweep speed in more open areas of less congestion without hampering their performance in moderate to higher mineralized ground conditions.

Just a few thoughts from an older guy who happens to be so equipped.

Monte

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The only thing I would add to this, to the O.P., is that you are very privileged to get Monte to chime in. His words of wisdom are always from hard-knocks & lots of know-how !!

 

[Hybridcruiser]

Hi Montie Those 2 that you picked happen to be my favorite ones with the mark 1 being my 1st . aside from your recommendations I think the 3 and 4 filter ones would be out of the question because I think they require a whipping motion..It was a very long time ago and a friend I use to detect with had a Red Baron and he had to whip that one and he was finding some pretty deep silver coins ..My shoulders would never hold up to that or I think I would of had one by now so because of that I passed on them and I have seen some pretty nice ones go though ebay since 2000 anyway..I also didn't mention I have a Wilson newman Daytona 2 .sometimes it works and sometimes it don't . I replace the headphone jack and all it does is just turns on and does nothing else.so I just put it away until I decide what to do with it.

thanks for your input Glenn

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....It was a very long time ago and a friend I use to detect with had a Red Baron and he had to whip that one and he was finding some pretty deep silver coins ..My shoulders would never hold up to that ....

Aaahhh the memories. Yes: And some guys wised up and hip-mounted theirs. The original 6000 D's and the Red Barons. They spanked everything in their era. And if you didn't hip-mount it, you had a Popeye arm after awhile. Doh !

 

[Monte]

Hi Montie Those 2 that you picked happen to be my favorite ones with the mark 1 being my 1st

The Mark 1 is kind of a blend of 1-filter and 2-filter influenced design and perhaps it's strong point was that it provided consumers with a very slow-motion/quick-response Target ID model at a time when most hobbyists had to make do with a faster-sweep design.

... I think the 3 and 4 filter ones would be out of the question because I think they require a whipping motion.

No, not necessarily so. It depends on which 4-filted based model you are using, how you adjust the settings, and the search coil size and type used. It was George Payne, working for Bounty Hunter at the time, who designed the first model with what we used to refer to as VLF-Disc. TR-Disc. was based on the conventional TR circuitry that required the operator to maintain a very uniform or consistent coil-to-ground relationship during the search as there was no compensation for the ground mineral signal.

George Payne was a White's engineer when he designed the first VLF ground cancelling circuitry in '74/'75 which gave us the basic All Metal search mode where the detector ignores the ground mineral signal [size=small](is balanced for it)[/size] and coil height wasn't quite as critical. That soon progressed to a 2-mode detector with a VLF All Metal mode, and a traditional TR-Disc. mode. Then in '78 when with Bounty Hunter, George designed the Red Baron models that featured what he called S.P.D. for Synchronous Phase Discrimination, which was just another nifty marketing term to describe a mode that Ground Balanced [size=small](i.e.: Discriminated the ground signal)[/size] and also Discriminated common unwanted trash. But for it to perform that dual-function task, the search coil required a very, very brisk sweep speed.

They were the first and the race was on for all the competitors. If I recall correctly, White's was the only detector maker to be licensed by Bounty Hunter to use that circuitry technology. Other manufacturers got busy trying to copy/duplicate it or come up with their own concoction. The terms used, other than S.P.D., were VLF-Disc., GB-Disc., GEB-Disc. a few others, such as "motion" Disc. and today we see almost all modern makes and models using some form of motion-based / ground cancelling Discrimination and the old conventional straight TR and TR-Disc. circuitry is just about gone.

But those early White's offerings from '78 through most of the '80s, like the 6DB, and various concoctions of the blue-boxed 6000 series, loosely called a 4-filter circuitry design, did require a very brisk sweep speed. Even the original Teknetics company, again, with George Payne as the engineer, called for that super brisk sweep with the 9000 and 8500 Coin Computer models. The later 6000 and 5900 Di Pro SL circuitry revisions did address the sweep speed issue, and if the Signal Balance was cranked up near the max workable limit, with any high Sensitivity setting, they could be worked at a slightly slower speed requirement, and even be called a 'moderate' sweep speed.

With the introduction of White's XLT about 24 years ago, it was still referred to as a 4-filter design, but it can happily be worked at a more moderate sweep speed, and even a little slower in many applications, but by that I mean a little slower. Still not a slow-sweep design. Naturally, the use of a smaller-size search coil can provide us with a lower sweep requirement than a 'standard' 950 size coil. I keep the 6½" Concentric Blue Max 600 coil mounted full-time on my XLT, as I keep smaller-size coils on most of my detectors. If I had a nice condition and proper functioning Teknetics Mark 1 in my arsenal, it would only sport the standard 7¼" Concentric coil.

Now, let's not confuse a 3-Filter circuitry design with a 4-Filter type as they are quite different. Going back 35 years to the summer of 1983, we really had two popular 2-Filter types detectors on the market. The Fisher 1260-X, introduced in 1982, and the then new Tesoro Inca brought out in July of '83. At that time, we basically had two choices in motion-based Discriminating detectors:

• 4-Filter or faster sweep speed requirement designs that had a longer "ring time" before recovery.
• 2-Filter or very slow-sweep/fast-recovery designs that had a quicker recovery time.

The helps and problems with those two circuitry types:

• 4-Filter detectors worked very well at handling a higher or more iron mineralized ground matrix, and they did/do allow the user to hunt most areas with a faster sweep speed without much loss of performance. Many people used to, and quite a few still today, enjoy using a 4-Filter detector for working open areas such as a large grassy park, sports field, etc., because they allow a moderate sweep, or faster if they can, without loss of target response.

• 2-Filter detectors are at their best using a slow and methodical sweep speed, especially if the ground conditions present a tough challenge. For example, a coin that is located in a dense black or highly mineralized sand, in pea gravel, in a rocky environment such as a rock-based parking lot, can be very difficult or even impossible to get a good signal on if the 2-Filter detector is swept at a very fast or brisk rate. Why? Because it forces too much ground signal to be processed to allow it to recover properly. It is easily self-demonstrated by anyone with a Tesoro or similar 2-Filter detector by putting a penny under 1½"-3" of pea gravel, rocks, or challenging black sand. A proper slow sweep can provide a much better target response, but a brisk sweep might not produce much of a signal at all.


This brings us to the 3-Filter circuitry designs:

These are not the same as a 4-Filter circuitry. The first popular 3-Filter offerings were brought to us by Compass Electronics and introduced in late '87 and into '88. Those were the Scanner series, designed by their lead engineer at the time, John Earle, and he dubbed the design 'Vari-Filter.' Vari-Filter was just another term for 3-Filter, and a loose description of what the 'Vari-Filter' design provided was a workable blend of 2-Filter and 4-Filter performance. You have the ability to sweep the search coil slowly, like a 2-Filter model, and get a quick-response and fast-recovery, yet you can also work the search coil at a moderate to somewhat faster sweep speed, similar to the XLT or XL Pro 4-Filter function and not have the impaired performance in really tough mineralized ground that effects the 2-Filter designs.

In '88 those Compass Scanner XP, 450 and 350 models went on the market and a year later the Gold Scanner Pro was introduced. The good part was that John Earle's 'Vari-Filter' circuitry design was new on the market. The problems were that the metal detecting industry, for the most part, had peaked about '83 to '86 here in the USA and many detector manufacturers had been dying off. That included Compass who was really suffering, and then when sold to a couple of guys who had no clue about this industry, or 'dealing with the devil', as we often mentioned around the office then, made a lot of errors and within a couple of years, Compass Electronics was also among those dead and gone detector makers.

We didn't really see another true 3-Filter model until the turn of this century when White's contracted Dave Johnson who designed the original MXT and a few others. The MXT, and offshoots M6, MXT Pro or All-Pro, are based on the 3-Filter circuitry technology and to not have to be whipped around or scooted along at much of a sweep speed. They seem to be at their best when worked from a slow and methodical sweep to a moderate but comfortable sweep rate.

It was a very long time ago and a friend I use to detect with had a Red Baron and he had to whip that one and he was finding some pretty deep silver coins.

They definitely required a a very brisk sweep that was soon uncomfortable. They could get silver coins a little deeper than a lot of the competition back then and part of the reason was that search mode was cancelling the challenges of the ground mineral signal.

My shoulders would never hold up to that or I think I would of had one by now so because of that I passed on them and I have seen some pretty nice ones go though @#$%& since 2000 anyway.

Shoulders, backs, necks and other body parts sure didn't seem to mind those early fast-motion detectors, at least not if we were younger and healthier. But when we get older, and I am, and have arthritic issues, which I do, and mobility struggles due to injuries, which I seem to be prone to in recent times, then trying to handle a slightly heavier set-up that needs to be worked at a lickity-split sweep speed just won't cut it.

My mobility has been suffering and declining since '91 due to a bad back, and I've been using a cane since early '93. On March 2nd of this year I endured an injury that tore my left rotator cuff, kind of mildly they said, but a fall on the cement driveway with other complex actions the end of March tore my right rotator cuff and several other muscles and ligaments, twisted my head and neck severely, and presented a problem with bone spurs in my neck pressing on the spinal nerve canal. I've been going to physical therapy for a month and will continuer through July, and still can't raise my right arm in front of me straight out more than a 45° angle, not even bent get as high as my shoulder level.

That said, most of my silver coins have been found since April 1st using my White's XLT w/6½" Concentric coil, along with a lot of other keepers, because I can work it at a slower and more comfortable sweep speed. Not quite like my 2-Filter Tesoro's or White's Classic ID, and not as slow as my Racer 2, FORS CoRe or Relic, or my MX-7, but slow enough to keep it enjoyable and comfortable. It's a combination of the XLT being able to use that slower to moderate sweep, the use of the smaller 6½" coil, and I keep all detector coils worked about 12" to 18" in front of my lead toe where they should be worked. If someone uses a lengthy rod adjustment to try for a wide arching sweep, that alone is going to cause a lot more fatigue.

I also didn't mention I have a Wilson newman Daytona 2 .sometimes it works and sometimes it don't . I replace the headphone jack and all it does is just turns on and does nothing else.so I just put it away until I decide what to do with it.

Seems like an easy decision to me. Bye-Bye.

thanks for your input

Sorry to ramble on this but I do hope some of what I have to say is of benefit to you or other readers.

Now, off to try and beat the heat, with a CoRe, Classic ID, MX-7 and XLT tagging along on today's journey for as long as I can hang in there. Best of success in your detector selection, and shopping for a newer model should you get the urge.

Monte

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Monte, Excellent post as usual. It captures not only the time-line evolution of the various machines in popular lore, but also the psychology that accompanied each step (eg.: those that tested the waters, the components of search site-types, etc....).

You have excellent recall of those evolutionary years. Some people, in various areas at that time (before the lightening fast internet made peer-reviews immediately available) were slow to pick up on the various evolutions. So for example, I knew of guys in my area, still swinging the 77b till 1980. Or BFO's till the late 1970s. Or TR disc. till the mid 1980s, etc......

I hope someone collects all your writings on the subject of 1960s to 1990s evolution, and puts it into a single concise "history". Ya know, like there is a "computer history museum" (of the relatively new computer scene) in the San Jose area. There ought to be a detector history museum (of relatively recent history as well) comprised of nothing more than your great recaps..

The only things I can see wrong or comment on is:

A) You say: " Then in '78 when with Bounty Hunter, George designed the Red Baron models that featured what he called S.P.D. for Synchronous Phase Discrimination, .... " Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was 1977. Not '78. There is a treasure mag. article, where someone was given the task of field-testing that machine. And it was in 1977. Not '78. Whites was quick to follow with the 6000d series 1.

B) You say: " The first popular 3-Filter offerings were brought to us by Compass Electronics and introduced in late '87 and into '88. "

What about the Teknetics Condor ? Isn't that "3-filter" ? Wasn't that introduced @ '85 or 86-ish ?

 

[slingshot]

Haha!! I was the first in my area to own the Red Baron series and my best friend buried some old coins and laughed as I excitedly recovered them. I thought I had the ultimate machine!

 

[Hybridcruiser]

Hi Monti, With all your ailments a little rambling on is what keeps you going and others interested in the hobby of detecting. I will have to read your post a few times to absorb all that you said. with all your problems you might want to think about writing a book or 2. I know with your knowledge they would sell like hot cakes or even connect with Eastern and Western and write up some articles .My Mark 1 works fine I been using a 10 coil on it because my 7-1/4 coil has a really bad connector on it . I Been trying to fix it but its been most difficult with my shakiness' and not being able to see what im doing.. I guess it comes with age at 68.Aside from which detector I want to use I do have one other question and that would be with my Wilson Newman Daytona 2..it did work for a bit and then I changed the batteries to heavy duty 9v. I had thought I read somewhere you have to use energizers in some of these detectors.I can hear it turn on but it does nothing no matter what I do to it , it makes no sense to me. ]

I'm sure glad the hot weather is almost over because I don't dare go out there with my breathing problems the way it is.. I can't wait to get in the water with my at pro it should be soon with all this hot weather were having the water should be fairly warm in a few weeks.. I only go out for a few hours just in time to watch the sun come up..thats the best time of day for me. The lakes around me are hit pretty hard everyone wants gold you know.. LOL
GOOD HUNTING TO EVERYONE

Glenn

 

[Monte]

The only things I can see wrong or comment on is:

A) You say: "Then in '78 when with Bounty Hunter, George designed the Red Baron models that featured what he called S.P.D. for Synchronous Phase Discrimination, .... " Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was 1977. Not '78. There is a treasure mag. article, where someone was given the task of field-testing that machine. And it was in 1977. Not '78. Whites was quick to follow with the 6000d series 1.

I guess I could have cleaned that up in proof reading to say in '78 Bounty Hunter introduced or put into production the Red Baron, and I am relying on memory as to when I first recall seeing and handling one at the coin shop in my home town where they carried the Bounty Hunter line.

George C. Payne holds Pat. 4128803 which was Filed on 4-29-1977. The 4128803 patent was one of several we used to see on a lot of those blue-box units White's had and some of the black housed versions, showing the various patents used in their circuitry. So the patent was Filed the end of April in '77, but I am not certain they got the finished product on the market that year or early '78.

Technically, White's was soon to follow, with the agreement with Bounty Hunter to use that basic circuitry design, but the first two models I think they had were the 6DB and then the 6000. But it was just a 6000 or 6000D, but was never labeled a "Series 1" because they had no idea at the time they would produce a Series 2 or Series 3. It was simply the 6000 and we refer to it as the Series 1 in general speak to set it apart from the 6000 Series 2 or 6000 Series 3.

B) You say: "The first popular 3-Filter offerings were brought to us by Compass Electronics and introduced in late '87 and into '88."

What about the Teknetics Condor ? Isn't that "3-filter" ? Wasn't that introduced @ '85 or 86-ish ?

The Compass Scanner series was "popular" simply because they seem to have hit the market before the Condor and Eagle by a year or so, and they probably sold more than Teknetics did with their Condor and Eagle. I was with some of the reps from Compass, Fisher and Teknetics when doing a movie in Dec./Jan. of '88/'89 when I met the fellow using a Condor or Eagle, I can't remember. By then, Teknetics was closer to death than Compass for similar mistakes in bad marketing choices.

The super fast sweep Tek. 9000 and 8500 models were loosing their appeal to the slower-sweep 2-filter offerings by then and they changed the colors with different decals, renamed the LCD display 9000 the Condor and the needle meter 8500 became the Eagle, and they were slowed down in sweep requirement by changing them over to a 3-Filter circuitry I was told. I never saw one in any dealers shop. I know far more people who used a Compass Vari-Filter Scanner than I do anyone who had experience with a production Condor or Eagle.

White's brought out their Eagle then Eagle II in '87/'88 and, once again if memory serves me well, the Teknetics Condor and Eagle came out after that. Nonetheless, the Compass and Teknetics manufacturers both died shortly after that and so did production of any Scanners, Condors or Eagles. So we didn't really see any model introduced, and rise to very impressive sales numbers in popularity and touting a 3-Filter design until the White's MXT.

There sure was a lot of fast-paced progress in subtle improvements to remarkable advancements in detectors, especially from about '71 to'83, and still new and creative designs since then, but a lot of those earlier models, let's say from '83 through '98 to span just 15 years, are still very capable detectors for most applications we can take on today. The most apparent changes since that 15 year period have been using LCD displays instead of needle meters, trimming the physical package for lighter and more comfortably balanced units, going to more Tone ID offerings and other creative functions that can, at times, be quite useful.

Monte

 

[slingshot]

Well, I sure realize my age after reading all this!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

........ but a lot of those earlier models, let's say from '83 through '98 to span just 15 years, are still very capable detectors for most applications we can take on today. ....

thanx for the trip down memory lane Monte.

And yes it's amazing that some machines that are now ~30 yrs. old, can still be highly competitive. There is a hunter in San Francisco, who started md'ing in about 1976 or '77. Strictly turf, and a legend at it. He got one of those Tek Condors back in those days (yes, you're right, they were not widely sold). And believe it or not, he was still spanking every other machine in the turf with that, right up till the Explorer's were hitting the scene. He got on the bandwagon and tried out the Explorer. And admitted it had a *slight* edge on depth. But only slightly. And to this day, he still keeps that Condor in his arsenal. And keeps pace in most all hunt situations, even with other hardcore aces to duel with.

Contrast that to the 30 yr. period between 1960 to 1990. There is NO machine in 1960, that could hold a match to even the cheapest toy-store detectors of 1990. In those decades, you had an absolute dinosaur, if your detector was a mere 5 yrs. old, haha

 

[Hybridcruiser]

Hi MONTI, I Would have no problem getting rid of the other detectors except for 1 and that one would be the AT PRO Only reason for that is I need a detector to go in the water with and it has found me a few gold rings already. I wouldn't mind having a modified compadre or perhaps a Mojave and I think either one of those two would do as well as the AT PRO or even better. I'm still trying to figure out why no one mentions the Tesoro Golden Sabre. I know Tesoro quit making the Golden line because of poor sales but really was the Golden line of detectors that bad? I know they did well in the silver models


Glenn

 

[Hybridcruiser]

The new used Tesoro golden sabre I got did not work and had to send it back to the seller for a refund .oh well easy come easy go. Anyway I was checking the new listings on e bay and a Original Bandito 2 was just listed and it looked like it was new yet so I bought it being it was a buy it now sale. I sure hope it works as good as it looks. I'm thinking it should be as good as the Golden Sabre if not better.. What do you guys think?

 

[Stoof-tabsallday]

I know what you mean about being indecisive on which to use. I have that problem every time I go out. That and which coil(s) to run....
In the end, every one is the right answer. The more you use each the better you'll he with each