Gold rings

[certifiedmale]

I use a whites M6 and most pull tabs and aluminum trash has a scratchy sound and the vdi #s waver as I pull away from them. The 5 rings I found did NOT waver at all and were a solid sound. Does this fit in with other's experience? Mark

 

[TerraDigger]

Yeah, my 19 year old White's Silver Eagle (stripped down Spectrum XLT) does exactly the same thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'm assuming you're talking pulltabs that had a certain TID scale reading, and gold rings that had the exact same TID # readings, right? So that the only "difference" was that one was "scratchy", while the other was "solid", right? I too have heard people say that gold rings "sound" different, even though they agree that gold and aluminum share the same TID #'s (ie.: all over the lower end of the TID scale). Ie.: gold is "mellower" or "softer" "solid", etc....

But I think that this is only the psychology of "selective memory" though. It's an easy subconscious trick. It works like this: Every time we md'rs stop to dig something, we think "this one sounds different". But when it turns out to be a tab or san slaw or beaver tail, we think "yeah, come to think of it, it DID sound kind of scratchy, etc...". And we immediately forget our premonitions. But after 100 tabs, slaw, and beaver tails, when we finally bring up that gold ring, only THEN do we remember our premonitions, and think "aha! I KNEW this one sounded different!"

It's the same thing that happens when we think our dreams came true that we dreamt. Each night, we dream hundreds of dreams, none of which come true. When we wake up, we forget them within a few minutes, right? But if one coincidentally comes true (that song you dreamt about is on the radio, or the friend you dreamed about calls and woke you up, etc...), only THEN do we remember the dream, and think "aha! I'm psychic!" But all it is, is selective memory.

Put it this way, I've heard of even one Whites dealer who made this claim about gold sounding mellower or solid or some other sort of supposed way to discern gold from aluminum. I challenged him to go to any inner city blighted junky park, and see how many gold rings he could find, while leaving the junk in the ground. He stopped making these claims after that (at least not to me. He might still make the claim to poor newbies who thence forth go knock themselves silly in junky turf perpetually thinking they must be doing something wrong). Heck, even at a 50 to 1 ratio most of us would gladly accept, right? But when it goes to 100's to one, then it becomes nothing more than random odds, and no, there is no sound difference.

Yes, some aluminum items sound "scratchy". But other aluminum items lock on quite nicely. Also some gold rings might sound "scratchy". Because you see, every item sounds different than each other. No two gold rings sound alike, no two aluminum wads sound alike, etc.... Sorry to be a kill-joy.

You can do some ring-enhancement exercises by knocking out commonly recurring junk items (like round tabs, smaller foil, etc...), and yes, passing bi-metal-tone sound "scratchy" targets. Lots of ways to lessen the punishment. But you will be passing some gold rings and jewelry, and you will be digging junk. Especially in a turfed area where can slaw and chopped stuff exists, that comes in all over the spectrum.

 

[Wrangler99]

I'm assuming you're talking pulltabs that had a certain TID scale reading, and gold rings that had the exact same TID # readings, right? So that the only "difference" was that one was "scratchy", while the other was "solid", right? I too have heard people say that gold rings "sound" different, even though they agree that gold and aluminum share the same TID #'s (ie.: all over the lower end of the TID scale). Ie.: gold is "mellower" or "softer" "solid", etc....

But I think that this is only the psychology of "selective memory" though. It's an easy subconscious trick. It works like this: Every time we md'rs stop to dig something, we think "this one sounds different". But when it turns out to be a tab or san slaw or beaver tail, we think "yeah, come to think of it, it DID sound kind of scratchy, etc...". And we immediately forget our premonitions. But after 100 tabs, slaw, and beaver tails, when we finally bring up that gold ring, only THEN do we remember our premonitions, and think "aha! I KNEW this one sounded different!"

It's the same thing that happens when we think our dreams came true that we dreamt. Each night, we dream hundreds of dreams, none of which come true. When we wake up, we forget them within a few minutes, right? But if one coincidentally comes true (that song you dreamt about is on the radio, or the friend you dreamed about calls and woke you up, etc...), only THEN do we remember the dream, and think "aha! I'm psychic!" But all it is, is selective memory.

Put it this way, I've heard of even one Whites dealer who made this claim about gold sounding mellower or solid or some other sort of supposed way to discern gold from aluminum. I challenged him to go to any inner city blighted junky park, and see how many gold rings he could find, while leaving the junk in the ground. He stopped making these claims after that (at least not to me. He might still make the claim to poor newbies who thence forth go knock themselves silly in junky turf perpetually thinking they must be doing something wrong). Heck, even at a 50 to 1 ratio most of us would gladly accept, right? But when it goes to 100's to one, then it becomes nothing more than random odds, and no, there is no sound difference.

Yes, some aluminum items sound "scratchy". But other aluminum items lock on quite nicely. Also some gold rings might sound "scratchy". Because you see, every item sounds different than each other. No two gold rings sound alike, no two aluminum wads sound alike, etc.... Sorry to be a kill-joy.

You can do some ring-enhancement exercises by knocking out commonly recurring junk items (like round tabs, smaller foil, etc...), and yes, passing bi-metal-tone sound "scratchy" targets. Lots of ways to lessen the punishment. But you will be passing some gold rings and jewelry, and you will be digging junk. Especially in a turfed area where can slaw and chopped stuff exists, that comes in all over the spectrum.

I don't think that the noise is what he was talking about. I believe he was talking about the VDI numbers changing less frequently over rings up or down one or two VDI oppose to pull tabs where the VDI numbers change rapidly all over the chart. I agree with you the sound a target makes is not a completely accurate way to judge the object even with tone ID it will correlate with the VDI numbers.

 

[TerraDigger]

Actually, alot of the lightweight aluminum does have a ever so slight raspiness. Not selective memory on my part. It's not foolproof, but having dug at least a couple thousand of these 'raspy's' that are aluminum is proof to me. Where as non-ferrous (non-aluminum/iron) signals don't exhibit the same raspiness, even though the VDI numbers on the junk indicate it should give a 'good' signal. That's my machine. Other White's units may not do this. But then, 2 of White's best techs tuned it about 1 1/2 yr's ago in the factory's test pits at my insistance. It actually exceeds White's spec's for depth over the Spectrum (it's big brother).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Terra digger and wrangler: I'm not currently using any whites in my arsenal, so I'm basing my info. on many years with Whites (xlt, eagle, etc...) and just generally, all TID machines of many different makes (currently using an explorer, for instance).

If a particular whites is different than the rest of the packs, and some sort of consistent trend is common amongst all aluminum sounds, that is not found in gold rings, then I offer this challenge to you:

Do you think you can go into a turfed field, where lazy hunters have simply left a lot of low conductors over the years, and use the sound observations you say-is-so, to hunt for gold rings? I would not expect it to be 100% mind you, because I'm sure there's lots of room for interpretation. But just conservatively speaking, using your sounds/tones/raspiness theory, how much junk do you think you would need to dig (ie.: false alarms) before digging a gold ring? Ie.: 25 to 1? 50 to 1? etc.... At what point does it just become random guessing?

 

[mudpuppy]

Marks post has been my experience as well, then I read Toms and Terras...Hmmm, great debate and food for thought! I will default to perfecting speedy retrieval, and keying on places rings are most likely to be found. Tough one eh? You know under a big set of bleachers theres gotta be one gold ring, or at least thats what you have to believe to crawl under there and go for it, amidst all those pulltabs, foil, poptops, screwoffs, pennys, washers, etc...the quicker a fellow can clear a signal definitively and move to the next is the strategy I've taken..If a fellow can retrieve 200 targets in an outing, thats good, if a fellow can clear 400, thats better. Its a matter of location, experience in setting up the machine for the situation, and speedy retrieval no? My experience as a noob has been to cover lots of ground quicker, but not just randomly either, seems theres certain spots in that rings are most likely to be lost than in others, but as we know, that is not a certainty at all, just part of the amazing hunt we are all on.
Mud

 

[bula]

All I can say is that I have never found a gold ring at a VDI of 22, 26, or 28 each & every time these numbers come up it is a pull tab. Now 18, 20, 32, & 42 I will dig as long as it is a solid number.

 

[Delaware Bill]

I have dug alot of gold jewelery with my M6 over the years and after the first 3 or 4 pieces I could usually tell it was gold only by the sound. It seems to have a very smooth and rounded sound. It doesn't seem to matter what the VDI's are as I have found small gold (children's size) rings at a VDI of 10 and large men's class rings at 75. Mostly Engagement type diamond rings usually read as a solid 12, wedding bands at a solid 20, but I have found gold items from as low as 6 for earrings all the way up to class rings showing from 67 to 75.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If this is the case, as you say,that you could "usually tell" when you had gold, then would you be able to go into a blighted junky urban park, and find gold rings, while leaving the majority of aluminum junk behind? What kind of ratios do you think you'd end up with?

The last person I had claim that he could tell the difference .... when I challenged him in this way (inviting him to join me in a ghetto blighted park to test his theory), he quickly declined. He said the ratios would still be 100+ to 1. And when I asked him how that was any different from "random chance", his claims to be able to tell gold, from aluminum, quickly vanished.

Hence I ask you: could you put your theory to work?

 

[Delaware Bill]

First, I did not say that it is a theory, what I said was that usually I can tell by the sound alone. Most of the gold jewelery that I have found has been in parks with a fair amount of trash. Just because I can tell by the sound also does not mean that I can ignore other signals as I often dig most everything as you never can be 100 percent sure about anything. Only someone that knows nothing about detecting would think that there is a detector that will only find gold jewelery and leave the trash behind. I have found Gold and Silver chains and bracelets that have sounded like can slaw but I dug them because there was something different about the sound. If you take the time to learn your detector you may find that you notice things like that. It's all a matter of time and effort not theory.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hmmm, well we both know that nothing is 100%. And we both know that no machine can tell gold from aluminum. But when I hear someone say "gold rings usually sound different", I sometimes wonder why they don't "play the odds" and simply employ their sound-know-how, and go to blighted parks and do it? Sure you'll miss a few scratchy gold rings, and sure you'll dig a few can slaws and tabs that sounded round and locked on. But heck, if someone knows what gold "usually" sounds like, then WHY NOT pass up the ones that "don't" sound like gold, if searching junky blighted parks?

Sure, you may currently employ the "dig everything just in case" tactic. But again I ask you, if you WERE to employ your "usually I can tell" know-how, and gamble on the odds: do you think you could up your odds of gold, and leave more junk behind? If so, I challenge you to try it in a blighted junky park near you, and report your ratios to us.

I suspect, as I have seen time & again, that the claim will dry up. I say this with utmost respect to you btw.

 

[nw1886]

I have never dug a ring and knew it was a ring before digging. This whole debate is about odds and not true exclusive "gold" ID.....will not happen with current tech....period. If you insist on solid numbers, you will miss out on rings with fancy settings. (Thanks for the reminder there Larry.) The only way to find all jewelry is to dig it all still.

I have been taking the more "solid numbers" approach and do this in higher trash areas and still dig so much aluminum it isn't funny. (In less trash I clear it all out.) For me, I go in knowing that jewelry will be missed and finding that one ring isn't worth leaving behind a mess in a nice park or spending so much time that takes away from my odds with finding 2 or 3 in a less trashy spot. (This approach is mine, is wrong for people that have time to hunker down in a "good spot", and have conditions where the hunt area is unmaintained and no evidence is left because of preexisting conditions.)

I'll always remember this man and wife who drove up and started hunting the same play field as me. I had no problem with this and looked forward to maybe a little camaraderie. Boy......they were about as nasty as you could imagine and I just told them in a "nice" way to p%!$$ off.....shut them up and they got out of my hair.
Later on, the lady came running up to me (at a full run) and showed me this real nice costume ring that I had "stupidly missed" (Her words.) I just smiled and said "That's a nice piece of costume jewelry (and yes) I would have liked to have found for sure!" Off she huffed and told me in parting that I "should probably learn my machine better!"..........? (To this day I have never had another experience like this and just goes to show how most people in our hobby are truly decent!)

As I was getting out of my gear, and sitting on my tail gate, they were loading up too. Here she came and asked (nastily) "What did YOU find?" (It was a very special moment!) Sorry for the long story but just saying....I had "nice" goodies and no one can tell me, that for that day....my approach was wrong! The only time I kick myself is when I'm driving away, reflecting on what my conditions were, and realizing that I didn't do an important settings adjustment. Never do I worry about missing something when I did all that I knew how to do at the time...or committed myself to a certain strategy. Man has created an endless array of variables with "garbage and gold" so just don't be silly and expect to "conquer it all" every time out. (That can take the fun out of it faster than a "nasty old bat"!!!)

 

[Delaware Bill]

I take it then that you do not know anything about detecting and are on the forums just to irritate people. Most forum members try to share the knowledge that they acquire over time to help others. You however seem to take delight in a negative way by bothering people. As such I will not let you distract me from my enjoyment of the forum, so as best you can have a nice day.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hmm, doesn't learning from each other requires us to disect claims? I mean no harm. I am genuinely interested when someone says they can tell (even if only in the "usual" sense), gold from aluminum. Oh well, as I said, I've had no one accept the challenge, whenever I see the claim floated. Thus my skepticism. Not wanting to irritate anyone It's a genuine question. If I am wrong, I really truly do want to know, thus I keep asking for someone to show the stat's.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

. If you insist on solid numbers, you will miss out on rings with fancy settings. (Thanks for the reminder there Larry.) The only way to find all jewelry is to dig it all still.

I have been taking the more "solid numbers" approach and do this in higher trash areas and still dig so much aluminum it isn't funny. (In less trash I clear it all out.)

So you're saying a person can't distinguish gold from aluminum, by sounds, tone, smoothness, etc... to any degree of reliability? Be careful, lest you "irritate" people with that type statement

 

[PulltabPirate]

Wow, interesting debate! I've been swingin' for a few dozen years now with multiple detectors & yea, I've learned a few things.
1 - Yep, "Hunches" SOMETIMES pay off!
2 - There are INFINITE variables at play in respect to tones and TID #'s
3 - ALL machines are imperfect!
4 - Want to find Gold? Dig Foil & tabs! (Sorry)

I will honestly admit & I'm sure many of you can too, that with my Fav. units, (6000 Di pro SL & XLT) I TRAINED my ears for coins. Not that I necessarily TRIED to do this, it just happens naturally after digging 10's of thousands of targets. BUT coins, especially Silver ones are HIGH conductivity targets & rather easily separate themselves "Tone wise" from lower conductivity targets such as, well everything else. If ALL Gold in the ground (Speaking of Jewelry) was 24 K - I Do believe we could greatly narrow down our odds of separating gold from crap. IT ISN'T! 8k, 10k, 14k, 18k etc... & EACH alloyed with a different metal. Thus, we can NEVER expect to obtain a consistent tone or TID # from such a wide variety of targets let alone the different grounds that contain them!
So, got a "magic formula" or "program" or "setting?" PLEASE!!!! I've been looking for it for 33 years or so. LET ME KNOW what it is! I mean NO disrespect to those of you who may know something I don't know. I admit it, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. But if that tool was made of gold, it would NOT be "Easy" to find with ANY metal detector! God Bless!

 

[nw1886]

That was harsh...two wrongs don't make a right. Seen enough posts (from most here) and sure we can all take a breather on this one. (Don't make me send pictures of that "nasty old bat"!) Scott

 

[nw1886]

Shoot.......I just enjoy digging anyways. (In my next life.....I wanna be a gopher.)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

" PLEASE!!!! I've been looking for it for 33 years or so. LET ME KNOW what it is!"

I remember when TID first came out in the very early '80s (crude early teknetics), the thought was always there: "there must be some way to discern aluminum from gold". And here we are, almost 30 yrs. later, still wondering the same thing. TID's have now gone to graphs and 2d axis screens, etc... (rather than simple low to high ascending/descending TID scale). And after all this 30 yrs, every can still agree that aluminum and gold jewelry share the same TIDs, and can not be discerned by graphs, bars, smears on the XLT screen, left/right or up/down axis, etc.... Just simply can't be done.

However, what you will find from time to time, is someone who acknowledges that, but says that gold sounds different. Ie.: more mellow, or locks on better, or softer, bolder, etc...... I have often wondered if this is not just a trick of selective memory (an easy subconsious trap to fall into). So when I hear someone make the claim, I endevour to find out if someone really has mastered this, by wanting to see it employed (ie.: go into a junky park and lets find out). I have yet to see anyone do it, so ...... I'm inclined to think it's selective memory.