Gold rings

[certifiedmale]

Guys , I just took a moment to check responses...Wow, I think I understand it better. Thanks for the insight. I found 4 gold rings in an enclosed swimming area that was shut down by the city and the smallest rang up as 4 - foil on my M6. The last one I dug rang up 32 and banged... very solid, but a lot of beaver tails do scratch, at least on my machine....honestly, most sound just like nickles . I have never dug any chains..probably just passed them up. Interesting answers...thanks.

 

[widebody]

[size=large]all this talk of phycology and suggestive thinking. do i need to drag a couch out for therapy?

HH[/size]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yup

One time a fellow and I were comparing two different machines, in a worked out urban turf zone in a park. Our purpose was to see how they stack up against each other for deep coins, TID ability, etc... The other fellow as a dealer, who was (of course) already quite biased for the machine he'd brought out to compare. I mean, go figure, he's a dealer afterall, and he probably wanted/hoped his machine would do well in this test (because we both knew we were going to post the results to our friends on a local forum).

During the test, I looked long and hard for signals which I could guess were going to be deep high conductors. Ie: wheaties, silver, or whatever, and would then call him over to see what he thought about the signal, from his machine's perspective. I noticed that the fellow would invariably agree "yup, it sounds good. I'd dig it. Could be a deep coin", etc... I began to wonder if he was just subconsciously saying this, looking for reasons in his mind to call the signal good, since .........afterall, I was only calling him over to show him "good" signals, afterall.

So I did a little secret test: I purposefully chose a signal which was one that was probably going to be a beaver tail or foil wad, or nail false, or some other such signal. And SURE ENOUGH, he comes over, and starts detailing the sound signature, tail, TID on his screen, etc... blah blah blah. And sure enough, when we dug it, it was trash But what happened next, was an interesting lesson in the psychological factor: He started saying how ....... in retrospect, the signal had some bad elements of not sounding so good, and sort of brought to the forefront any indication of de-merits he had previously mentioned, as if to say "yeah, I actually really sort of knew it". Had it gone the other way, and the signal was a deep silver, he'd have reminded the both of us of the positive attributes he had previously cited, as to how the signal may be a good one.

Thus the psychology of why we *think* we heard something different in gold ring signals. It's all selective memory, that we are all subject to, and just don't realize.

 

[jeffegg2]

I dig them all anyway..... less to see next time.

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

I've had some success with gold rings from the M6. I've found 7 in all. All the pretty plain gold bands banged in solid with a totally unwavering VDI number. The one nugget ring I found wavered somewhat, but stayed within about a 6 number range and, as one other fellow posted, it just "sounded interesting". That's what I love most about the M6. Some signals just "sound interesting" and have almost always been worth digging. Another interesting thing I've noticed about the M6 is the VDI of 74, which the machine interprets as a penny. Many of my best and most unusual finds clocked in as a "74". This includes 2 watch fobs, the back to a gold watch and the latest - an IH cent lying underneath a brass cartridge case. I love those "74's"!!!

Just my two cents.

HH

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

Can I get in on this???

Let's say we cordon off areas of 50 feet by 50 feet in a trashy park and you, Tom_in_CA, plant identical gold objects in each. I will put me up using my M6 against anybody else using any other machine. I DO BELIEVE the M6 can make that much difference. Whether the competition be dedicated gold machine, the almighty explorer or any other, I'm very sure that not only would I find the planted gold items faster, but if it's in an area likely to hold gold items, I'd bet that I would come up with some gold items beyond those which you had planted. ...and I'd be doing all this with my little tiny 4x6 coil!

As far as your intimidating a White's dealer with your challenge, that means a big "Squat-O" to me. I don't know of any dealers that have real in-depth knowledge of any of their machines. They are 'jacks of all trades, but masters of none'. Now if you find a dealer who only sells White's M6's or one that only sells Minelab Etracs or one that only sells Fisher F75's, then their knowledge-base and opinions about the machines must be duly evaluated.

You come up with the time, place and the gold to plant (which I will keep after finding it) and I'll step right up to your challenge. The M6 is that good. If my trash to good target ratio is over 50 to 1, I'll give you your gold back. If the ratio is less than 25 to 1, you personally will pay for all my expenses to this planted hunt.

I'm up for it and I KNOW that the M6 is up to it. All we need to determine is: where and when?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Phillip, why does the gold targets need to be planted? Why not simply go out to a blighted junky ghetto park in NM near you, and simply do as you say? Cordone off a 50x50 ft. area, and report back to us your results. Dutifully keep everything in your apron, and tell us the ratios.

And it's important that the site be prolific with trash. Like as in, picnic areas around BBQ pits, etc.... in seedy parts of town-type-parks. Because if you simply picked a soccer field in an upscale side of town, then the odds are simply better for gold jewelry, to begin with. Therefore it has to be a place where simple strip-mining doesn't *already* afford someone a better chance at gold rings (like on swimming beaches, etc... where it's simply more condusive, to begin with). It has to be a place where a person is forced to have to know the difference between the targets, lest he end go nuts with 100's to 1 ratios.

If you want, I'll search your part of NM, do some satellite and man-on-street google views, to pick a suitable blighted park, Ok? Or if you want to make the 16 hr. drive (or hop a flight) to CA, I'll pick the park here for you

Are you still up for the challenge?

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

Well, Tom, I would like the areas to be seeded for the simple need of a control group for any scientific investigation. Your premise with Delaware Bill seemed to be that no detector/detectorist can sort out the gold/trash signals with any degree of success beyond random chance and you seemed to attempt to invalidate his premise that one can with the M6.

I am saying that I absolutely can with the M6. It's one of the very reasons that I head to the trashy areas in the nicer parks just to find what others can't find. I've yet to see any machine that can find gold jewelry with the frequency of the M6. Right now I'd say my trash to gold ratio, that is, the number of trash targets that I think sound like gold compared to the actual number that are gold is about 30-40:1. That is very acceptable in my book.

As far as the "blighted" parks in the seedy parts of town, I wouldn't expect to find much gold there anyway so I typically don't bother. I don't know what your parks are like, but some of ours offer a very real chance of you being beaten and robbed and losing your detector or worse yet, kneeling down on infected needles. A big part of finding gold is going where gold is likely to be found. That's just common sense. Why you think that those blighted seedy parks are the place to look for gold is beyond me. It's another reason that if seedy parks are the required locale for a real test, I would insist on planted gold targets, otherwise whoever participates might be spending hours searching for absolutely nothing. Then whose point would be proven?

You seem determined to question that M6 users can find gold reliably, yet you seem reluctant to test this theory with any sort of control group. I'm going to have to go with Delaware Bill on this one. You are looking for an argument rather than a discussion. Just because you can't reliably find gold jewelry with your detector doesn't mean it can't be done.

HH,

Phillip

 

[TerraDigger]

I am not taking sides for or against what you say about the M6.......but technically speaking.........what 'qualities/attributes' of the M6 allows it to have better discernment of gold jewelry targets over all other detectors? There has to be a specific technological attribute(s) of the M6 that supports your statements regarding its superior gold finding identification in trash. If no provable/repeatable (by other M6 users) technical attribute(s) of the M6 can be shown for man made gold objects, then what you have stated is more opinion, than fact. If a gold object has enough mass/purity, it will VDI as a penny or higher on any detector with VDI capability.
I am not typing this to discredit what you say. I simply want to know what 'unique' M6 engineering attribute(s) allows for 'gold jewelry' superiority over other detectors.

I once found a 10k gold mens wedding band with my White's 6000Di Series 2 detector at a schoolyard. It solidly identifed as a copper penny with no number fluctuation. Why? Because the ring was massive. Weighed almost 1 ounce. It's that old mass and/or karat purity thing I'll bet.

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

Terra,

You make a cogent point. Not being technologically knowledgable about the internal workings of metal detectors, I can't really answer that with any authority. I've wondered, and my detecting partners have asked if it might not just be that I know the M6 better than any machine I have ever owned. While that is certainly true, I believe that my M6 provides me with information through the quality of the sounds that give me a leg up on the competition. I had a DFX for 3 years before I had the M6 and found no gold with it. But then again, I never had much confidence with the DFX because I never felt sure I had all the settings just right.

I think it may be several things in combination in my particular case: 1) Supreme confidence in what my M6 is telling me. 2) Positive reinforcement in terms of finding gold, including some in areas where one would not expect to find gold. 3) Having a good eye towards finding those places where gold jewelry is likely to be found. And last, but certainly not least, 4) Having a positive attitude. I go out expecting to find gold. Most people are shocked and delighted when they happen to find gold jewelry. I go out expecting to find it and often do. I'm not the only one who believes this way. I know that Charles Garrett says basically the same thing about any type of metal detecting. You have to believe that you can find it. When using my M6 in an area where I think there's a good chance of being gold jewelry underground, I go in expecting to find that gold. I believe that is a huge part of it. Having said that, I've used a Garrett GTI 2500, a Garrett Ace 250, a Fisher 1236x2, a Fisher F75, a White's DFX, a Minelab Explorer SE and the M6. The 2500 got me one gold ring. Other than that, no gold with any of the other machines.

So maybe, just maybe, it really isn't anything technically advanced about the M6. Maybe someone can be equally or more successful with another machine. All I know is that the M6 has made me the believer when it comes to me finding gold jewelry.

Hope that answers your question satisfactorally.

HH,

Phillip

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Phillip, the M6 can reliably find gold. My machines too can reliably find gold. No debate here. And within each machine, is a myriad of sounds, tones, etc.... given off by each target.

And you're right, a 30 or 40 to 1 trash to gold rings ratio is acceptible, in the turf. I would never expect the challenge to result in zero trash, and "all" gold to pass the test. But the more I read into the text of the type places you're choosing (which are not, as you admit, blighted junky parks, and are *already* places with less trash and more rings, etc...). the more I think your sites simply have better ratios, to begin with. Then yes, once you combine that with a good TID machine, a good user can go through and pass the flittly sounding bi-metal tones, for instance. Then yes, they can dig the ones that "sound different", hit at diff.quadrants on the cross-hairs, and so forth.

I guess to that, I would have to say that this is not meaning that "gold and aluminum sound different" (the nature of the debate here), but that a user has simply mentally done a "ring enhancement program" in their mind (which isn't a bad thing mind you), and are simply passing up the most commonly recurring junk items (little bits of foil, or other such bi-metal flitty sounding things).

To me this is not an ability to "tell gold apart from aluminum", which is the question of this topic. Because as you can readily admit, you are still passing some gold items (flitty sounding chains, or rings on edge that don't give a clean signal, so you pass them thinking they're trash, etc..). And likewise, you will dig aluminum junk that "sounds like gold". In each case, you can see this is merely an "enhancement" or "odds" game, and that in no case, does gold "sound different" than aluminum. For example: Any gold ring you can show me, I bet I can take a wad of foil or tin snip out a snippet from an ulimunum can, and ...... given enough bending, folding, etc..... I can make the piece of aluminum exactly mimic the gold ring. Would you agree? Then that point alone ends the discussion of "gold and aluminum sounding different", if two targets (1 gold, and 1 aluminum) can be found or made to have the exact same tones, sounds, shapes, etc.... on the TID.

So I think we can both agree that no machine is able to tell the user "gold from aluminum", based on tones, sounds, etc.... It's all enhancements, of passing the most commonly recurring junk, and digging the most commonly recurring rings sounds and tones (which, yes, can be done, and no is not a bad thing, and no, is not "telling aluminum apart from gold"). And doing all this in areas which are simply more condusive for gold jewelry, to begin with.

 

[TerraDigger]

Your explanation may not be hard core scientific..........but you bring up several, what I consider, valid real world explanations. Machines do have subtle audio differences on particular objects. My White's Silver Eagle, a 20 yr old stripped down XLT, has a particular audio quality for many types of aluminum junk, that is audibly different from other metals sharing the same VDI range. Been doing this 30 years and it is not my imagination. My other detectors don't share this quality. Attitude, again, not scientific plays a crucial role. Thousands of detectorists will attest to that. Finally, knowledge/comfortability with machine is paramount to understanding what it is saying. Personally, I think our sub-concious processes audio subtleties far better than any computer made, yet we are not conciously aware its doing that. It appears your sub-c is working fine.
I also see Tom in CA's point of view too.
Perhaps if the thread would have started with a more in-depth explanation/opinion of why your M6 finds the gold jewelry, our typing fingers would have not gotten callouses...........lol
Bottom line for you Phillip. Your finding gold. And thats as good as it gets when we are dirtfishing.

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

Terra,

I think you are absolutely right...on all counts. I should've started out with the explanation gave earlier, but sometimes my mind lacks the subtleties it needs in dealing with challenging types. My job requires me to be pretty aggressive. Sometimes my mouth outruns my brain!

I think what you are describing with your XLT is much like me and my M6 and others and their machines; you just really, really understand it and everything it's trying to tell you. Good feeling...really nice to have that confidence in the field. Never had it with any other machine.

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

Well, Tom, I'll have to mull that over for a bit. I know all machines can find gold. And you are absolutely right in that I look for gold in areas which have a higher than average likelihood of finding gold. (Although, as we all know, there are trashy areas in even the nicest parks - those are the areas I head for, because I know that most hobbyists avoid listening to that much trash.) But I also know that my ratio of trash (sounding like gold) compared to actual gold dug is steadily improving. I doubt that I will ever see a 10:1 ratio, but I think a 20:1 ratio might be coming in the not-too-distant future. As far as creating targets that sound like gold, I think the M6 might offer subtleties of sound that give an extra edge (but I suspect this is not limited to the M6). Of course, the possiblity also exists that I am just extraordinarily lucky in finding gold.

I hope you (and the other readers) will forgive my bias toward the M6. It's just been a perfect fit for me from the very get-go. I hadn't had it out of the box more than an hour when I found my first gold ring (turned out to be my second cousin's wedding ring - really crazy story) and within 3 hours of opening the box had 5 rings, 1 gold, 2 silver and 2 junk.

I hope everyone finds a machine that talks to them like this M6 talks to me, but if you do, please stay the heck out of Albuquerque's parks.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well, ok, we'll "call it even" with that But I must say, I had a chuckle with the irony of this statement:

"As far as creating targets that sound like gold, I think the M6 might offer subtleties of sound that give an extra edge"

Does anyone catch the irony of that statement? If a machine or user can tell the difference (give that "extra edge") to tell apart a purposefully folded up piece of aluminum ...... Well then guess what? That "folded up piece of a aluminum", by definition therefore, did NOT exactly mimic the given gold ring.

So really then, what your statement should say is:

"I do not think you can fold up a piece of aluminum, to exactly mimic a gold ring".

Because the minute you say "but I could still tell them apart", then by definition, they don't sound alike, and thus, aren't folded in such a way to "exactly mimic the gold ring".

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

OK, Tom, you've dissected my words quite articulately. I'm through bandying words about. The truth of the matter is this:

Some M6's come with a magical chip in them. Some items may sound exactly like gold, be they gold or "folded up pieces of aluminum". If they are gold, the magical M6's have a display that says "DIG". I've only encountered a few people that have these magical M6's. All the magical M6 owners are friendly, outgoing, affable people - the type of people you'd enjoy exchanging ideas with or having as a detecting partner (Buddha would describe these people as having the spirit of mudita). I don't think any of the magical M6 owners are the Schadenfreude types and I don't think they would ever consider dissecting a fellow hobbyist's opinions. But you might consider buying an M6 and crossing your fingers in the hope that you get one of the magical ones.

As far as irony goes, I understand it well. Ironically, I thought our discourse had ended on a pleasant note, then I read your reply from today. I'm done. Any future dissections will have to be done on some other well-meaning, open-minded person's opinions.

HH,

Phillip

 

[Larry (IL)]

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble but gold rings have many MANY sounds depending on many factors including size, depth, orientation in the ground, whether it has one or more stones, how big the mount is and who knows what other factors. The classic wedding band almost always gives a nice sound unless it is vertical in the ground but some of the best rings sounds quite trashy from the mount and prongs especially on multi-stone rings. A $5000 ring or bracelet can sound just like a piece of can slaw.

 

[nw1886]

As much experience as I've had, seen in others, newest and best equipment development, ring dance , gold shimmy or luck, no information is there to dissect a "real" diagnosis that will be there for you time after time after time. You better just find some way to process having to dig this stuff and enjoy it. The best anyone does is increase their odds by deciding to leave less common gold targets in the ground. Depending on how much you dig, you always "plan" to leave gold behind....by default. I try and bypass this by digging everything "gold" in a "good" area and not everything "gold" everywhere. Not going to waste my time....and enjoy every piece of aluminum in my pouch. (No downside in that good "hoping" feeling...in better odds.) No wrong here...that is just my own "right".

 

[Phillip_in_NM]

Perfectly stated. Thanks for sharing these thoughts.

 

[slingshot]

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble but gold rings have many MANY sounds depending on many factors including size, depth, orientation in the ground, whether it has one or more stones, how big the mount is and who knows what other factors. The classic wedding band almost always gives a nice sound unless it is vertical in the ground but some of the best rings sounds quite trashy from the mount and prongs especially on multi-stone rings. A $5000 ring or bracelet can sound just like a piece of can slaw.

Exactly. My Compadre found a vertical ring-sounded like a coin on edge-double blips. My Ace 250 found a gold bracelet which gave the "boop" or iron tone. My Silver umax found a thin gold ring that was nothing more than a "crackle" in the headphones-was in a high mineral content.