Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
CZ 3D on the way!
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
Shenandoah Digger
New member
I had always read that you had to have a 1021 series 3D to get super depth, but found that not to be true. I bought one about a year ago and it blows Tom's depth readings away. I get over 12 inches on a dime with proper ID. I think you'll be more than satisfied with your new one.
Shenandoah Digger
New member
I've never had a problem with cranking up the sensitivity all the way but find it doesn't really give more depth. At 5 a good target has a short high tone. If you go higher on sensitivity the short high tone sometimes becomes a long high tone, which for me is usually a nail. At 5 with practice you can tell the difference between a good target and a bad one. Some say they dig tons of nails with the 3D because they sometimes do come in as a high tone, but with experience you'll know the difference.
The 3-D is a coin hunting monster!!!!! I just found my 96th silver coin yesterday with my 3-D and i will end the year with well over a hundred again [ 112 last year and 145 the year before ] mine is a 1021 and gets excellent depth but i can't get higher than 4 Sensitivity or it will false. My wife uses my old hand me down CZ 7 a Pro i think it is a little deeper than my 3-D but we both do great.
The best accessory in metal detecting is a wife that loves to detect, and she is GOOD!!! She found not one but 2 1928 St gaudens 20 dollar gold pieces earlier this year and is pretty close in her silver count. CZ'S are great machines as good as anything out there. So have fun and good digging Aaron. HH Tim
here is yesterday's finds.
The best accessory in metal detecting is a wife that loves to detect, and she is GOOD!!! She found not one but 2 1928 St gaudens 20 dollar gold pieces earlier this year and is pretty close in her silver count. CZ'S are great machines as good as anything out there. So have fun and good digging Aaron. HH Tim
here is yesterday's finds.
Aaron i am still a journeyman in detecting years . If you go to NASA Tom and read and read some more you will learn plenty .
From Toms specs,He helped design the CZ 3D you should hit 11 inches with sens at 6 ground bal mid point with 8 in coil,
I have a CZ 70 as a back up . Thy are easy and fun enjoy Mike
From Toms specs,He helped design the CZ 3D you should hit 11 inches with sens at 6 ground bal mid point with 8 in coil,
I have a CZ 70 as a back up . Thy are easy and fun enjoy Mike
Yea, the CZ3D is the way to go, its easy to acclimate yourself to since its just plain easy to read and easy to use.
You will hear claims of amazing depth with this unit and they are most likely true.
I found things with mine at depths that were astonishing.
I have dug nickles, dimes and quarters out of wet sand on Ft. Lauderdale beach that were 16 to 25".
I couldn't believe it but when I dug the sand away for a dime at a depth of 16" geez.
I think that the target's undisturbed halo has a bit to do with it and when the conditions are right etc.
Anyways, you're going to love the CZ3D.
I won't part with mine.
You will hear claims of amazing depth with this unit and they are most likely true.
I found things with mine at depths that were astonishing.
I have dug nickles, dimes and quarters out of wet sand on Ft. Lauderdale beach that were 16 to 25".
I couldn't believe it but when I dug the sand away for a dime at a depth of 16" geez.
I think that the target's undisturbed halo has a bit to do with it and when the conditions are right etc.
Anyways, you're going to love the CZ3D.
I won't part with mine.
>> "have dug nickles, dimes and quarters out of wet sand on Ft. Lauderdale beach that were 16 to 25"<<<<
Opps...Darn it ! Can't believe that I didn't catch or see that when I posted it
but on the depths of the Cz3D I want to clarify I ment to say 16" to 20" ( not 25 )
I did actually dig a quarter but it was at 20 inches slightly damp sand under dry.
That for me is the deepest target that I have ever acquired and successfully recovered
and it was with a CZ3D. I believe that the majority of other (deepest finds) 12" - 14" in regular soil.
About 12" for a dime and almost 14" for a lawnmower quarter.
Anyways put a fork in me, I'm done.
Opps...Darn it ! Can't believe that I didn't catch or see that when I posted it
but on the depths of the Cz3D I want to clarify I ment to say 16" to 20" ( not 25 )
I did actually dig a quarter but it was at 20 inches slightly damp sand under dry.
That for me is the deepest target that I have ever acquired and successfully recovered
and it was with a CZ3D. I believe that the majority of other (deepest finds) 12" - 14" in regular soil.
About 12" for a dime and almost 14" for a lawnmower quarter.
Anyways put a fork in me, I'm done.
I had purchased my 3D at the end of November and it never did impress me as far as the air testing went. I had used Nasa Toms guidelines and the best it will do is 6-7" on a clad dime. Because it is winter up here in Michigan I havent been able to get too much time in on it. However I had found some wheaties at 7-8" that sounded pretty strong. Talking with some of you guys I decided to send it back to Fisher. What I find really disappoiniting is that I had done my research on the machine for awhile before I bought it. I have owned a 70 pro for 4 yrs and really love it and had been wanting a 3d for awhile. Some guys were saying the 1021's from Los Banos were the best while some were saying that some of the newer ones worked just as good as the 1021's. Nobody would sell me a 1021 so I called Fisher and asked them what the deal was regarding the LosBanos machines an they assured me they worked off the same specs as the old ones and they work just as good. So I decided to take a chance and ended up getting a "sub-par" machine. Now, let me explain, I have always had a Fisher since 1988 (1265x). Fisher and Whites have and continue to be the best companies out there especially as far as service go's. The thing that concerns me is that Fisher is not really the same company anymore, I have only good things to say about the people I have delt with so far (Felix & Daniel), and I really hope they can get my machine working the way it should. Nasa Tom says it should be air testing a dime at 10-12 inches, mine is not even close to that. I just feel that for $770. the consistency of their products (as per christopher-ohios post) should be alot better.
Aaron
Aaron
Aaron,
I'm sorry to hear that you had one with issues.
I'm sure that its probably just needs calibration.
FISHER will get it right / make it right.
Don't give up on it until you get it back so we can all see if the units are the same.
I'm really curious as to if anything has really changed in the manufacture of these units or if there is simply
a person or group of incompetent jack @$$es doing the factory setups or qual checks.
It would be great for everyone to know whats going on with these types of issues.
I'll provide you with my Air Test data from my log when you get yours back so you can compare if you like.
I own a low serial 1021 and have had no problems.
Its better than any of the other analogue detectors that I have ever used.
Its the deepest that I have ever owned and even deeper than
all the other Fishers that I have ever owned.
Regards,
Grant
I'm sorry to hear that you had one with issues.
I'm sure that its probably just needs calibration.
FISHER will get it right / make it right.
Don't give up on it until you get it back so we can all see if the units are the same.
I'm really curious as to if anything has really changed in the manufacture of these units or if there is simply
a person or group of incompetent jack @$$es doing the factory setups or qual checks.
It would be great for everyone to know whats going on with these types of issues.
I'll provide you with my Air Test data from my log when you get yours back so you can compare if you like.
I own a low serial 1021 and have had no problems.
Its better than any of the other analogue detectors that I have ever used.
Its the deepest that I have ever owned and even deeper than
all the other Fishers that I have ever owned.
Regards,
Grant
CZ70 pro has a night light, superior notching and of course the 4th tone not to mention its weather resistant construction...As far as the 3D old or new never saw much depth difference in either and used both....
In my book any CZ is a good unit and certainly Tom's concept of dig more to find more with his CZ3D really works well in extremely old places so take your pick...
In my book any CZ is a good unit and certainly Tom's concept of dig more to find more with his CZ3D really works well in extremely old places so take your pick...
Hi Dan my 70 Pro seems to also lack depth in air tests only getting like 7 inches on a dime sensitivity at 6 Do you think Broken Detector could do something about that or Fisher it is newer model 1129 series works great never found any coins over 8 inches though
Thanks Aaron
Thanks Aaron
Aaron,
Have you sent in your new CZ-3D to Fisher for them to adjust?
I am very interested to know how this works out, if you don't mind sharing. Let me explain why.
(Long story - sorry)
In the early 90's I picked up a CZ-6a, used it for years and was impressed by it's depth, ergonomics, small overall package and ease of use. It's lone weakness was an appetite for deep rusty nails. I considered it a trade off for the depth. I finally sold it after several years and picked up an Explorer XS. The Explorer had excellent depth with it's 10.5" coil, similar to the CZ-6a with the 8", and it pretty much ignored the rusty nails that the CZ-6a always seemed to find. But every detector has it's weaknesses. I had an injured shoulder fixed a few years ago, but it still doesn't like swinging a heavy detector, like the Explorer, for any length of time. It just gets sore.
I recently sold the Explorer and picked up an older Minelab Sovereign. The Sovereign has a reputation of excellent depth and iron rejection and can be hipmounted. But I need some time with it to see if overall, it meets my needs and expectations. (Everybody has ideas about what works for them and one persons perfect detector is a headache for somebody else) So right now I'm in the process of finding that 'perfect' detector to use for the next several years. The newer top-of-the line detectors are running $1,200-1,500, plus the cost of an extra coil. And in reality, I don't really need all the computerized gadgetry most of these high end detectors have to hunt the places I frequent. The $800 for a new CZ-3D is 30-50% less than top end. The Fisher coils are more moderately priced than Minelabs as well. So IF the Minelab isn't what I thought it would be, I need a plan B.
The CZ-3d is my plan B if I can get a CZ-3D that is up to what NASA-Tom says are the factory specs of depth and target separation. But if it is a crap shoot to get a brand new detector that is what it should be, that is a different matter.
I am anxious to see how this works out for you. If First Texas is willing to get your CZ-3D up to snuff it will make a difference in whether or not I am willing to buy a new one. If they consider your problem the luck of the draw, I will have to decide if it is worth risking.
Thanks,
Rich (Utah)
Have you sent in your new CZ-3D to Fisher for them to adjust?
I am very interested to know how this works out, if you don't mind sharing. Let me explain why.
(Long story - sorry)
In the early 90's I picked up a CZ-6a, used it for years and was impressed by it's depth, ergonomics, small overall package and ease of use. It's lone weakness was an appetite for deep rusty nails. I considered it a trade off for the depth. I finally sold it after several years and picked up an Explorer XS. The Explorer had excellent depth with it's 10.5" coil, similar to the CZ-6a with the 8", and it pretty much ignored the rusty nails that the CZ-6a always seemed to find. But every detector has it's weaknesses. I had an injured shoulder fixed a few years ago, but it still doesn't like swinging a heavy detector, like the Explorer, for any length of time. It just gets sore.
I recently sold the Explorer and picked up an older Minelab Sovereign. The Sovereign has a reputation of excellent depth and iron rejection and can be hipmounted. But I need some time with it to see if overall, it meets my needs and expectations. (Everybody has ideas about what works for them and one persons perfect detector is a headache for somebody else) So right now I'm in the process of finding that 'perfect' detector to use for the next several years. The newer top-of-the line detectors are running $1,200-1,500, plus the cost of an extra coil. And in reality, I don't really need all the computerized gadgetry most of these high end detectors have to hunt the places I frequent. The $800 for a new CZ-3D is 30-50% less than top end. The Fisher coils are more moderately priced than Minelabs as well. So IF the Minelab isn't what I thought it would be, I need a plan B.
The CZ-3d is my plan B if I can get a CZ-3D that is up to what NASA-Tom says are the factory specs of depth and target separation. But if it is a crap shoot to get a brand new detector that is what it should be, that is a different matter.
I am anxious to see how this works out for you. If First Texas is willing to get your CZ-3D up to snuff it will make a difference in whether or not I am willing to buy a new one. If they consider your problem the luck of the draw, I will have to decide if it is worth risking.
Thanks,
Rich (Utah)