If Finding Rings Is A Numbers Game...

[Critterhunter]

If finding rings is a numbers game, which many argue and with huge merit to that of course, then how do you increase the amount of trash you dig so the laws of averages finally produce you a ring? Of course beaches are a place where rings are lost more frequently than some sites on land, but if you think about it most of the time we still are scooping a ton of junk before we come across a gold ring. It's still a numbers game.

So I was thinking...How do you play that angle on land? Well, besides many rings being lost on beaches, one of the reasons why it's also so popular is that it's easy to use a long handled scoop to recover many targets fast over a several hour hunt. On land of course bending down and digging with a digger is much more work, but then it hit me...If you are going out intending to ring hunt for the day on land, how can you improve the rate of recovery, so you dig that "required" 500th pulltab or other junk before the law of averages finally coughs up a ring for you?

The easiest way to ring hunt on land, just like trying to rack up fast clad totals, besides targeting spots of activity where a ring has more chance to be lost...Is to use a screwdriver and quickly pop your targets as you hunt. Seek out the shallow stuff within range of popping with a screwdriver (say south of 4" deep, or perhaps at a max of say 2" maybe), and then use your Pro Pointer to find it exactly (super tuning works wonders for this), and pop it out quick and fast with your screwdriver.

This is also a great way to beat the heat, meaning no digging crumbling plugs when the ground is bone dry. Besides, some sites (such as real nice fenced in ball diamonds) you are just asking for trouble if somebody sees you digging in a place so nicely taken care of like that.

Not only are you increasing the speed of recovery, and thus improving the odds of a ring among the many more targets you are popping than you would digging, but also you are bound to rack up a fast bunch of clad totals, which can also be rewarding in it's own way.

Just throwing it out there for those who like to land hunt for rings. It's not just about some strategies trying to play the odds with avoiding the most common trash at a site and digging other zones, but also that hand can be played by just trying to increase the amount of targets recovered in one day. For those who want other possible strategies to tip the treasure to trash ratio in your favor when it comes to rings, we scanned in over 100 unbiased rings and crunched the numbers. Where most are on the conductivity scale is probably not what you always believed...

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1720979,page=1

 

[Critterhunter]

Yes, using a notch and other strategies can hold some merit in certain situations, all gone over in that thread I linked above. I'll have to check out the Tesoro forum to get the low down on his strategies. Sounds right up my alley in terms of way of thinking.

 

[Smudge]

The biggest obsticle to most people finding rings is where they choose to set their discrimination.

Most set their machines just below "PULLTAB", but where you really need to set it is just below "FOIL".

Almost all my gold rings came in at the foil range.

 

[Critterhunter]

For sure the foil range is where it's at. In fact, the numbers we crunched showed that the nickle and tab zones combined didn't equal the amount found in the foil range. Even more strangely, more rings are found in the just a hair below zinc penny range all the way up through the coin range than in the nickle zone. I believe the old "myth" about digging the nickle zone is from machines with low resolution, and thus have a wider window of the "nickle" zone, taking both some foil below it and some tabs above. Using high resolution on a machine able to quantify these areas of conductivity shows more distinction of where they fall.

 

[mudpuppy]

Yep, I'm a big proponent of your post subject, Critter...screwdriver, location, fast, furious and foil...its a cladstabbers and jewelry hunters dream...also, for noobies, the more targets your "dig" in the shortest amount of time gets you up to expert level real quick...its nothing to pop a couple hundred targets in a few hours, every once in a while they are pre 64 silver, when you find those, of course you can modify your behavior to the location for more of them...after you get really good and fast, its about 10 sec from target ping to pouch...no pinpointing or dinking around...a very satisfying and comfortable way to run, low sens, shallow, no digging...no kneeling for that matter, oh maybe down on one like a genuflect, about as quick too, or mostly just sort of a wide legged stoop like a giraffe drinking from a water hole, stab, grab and go! It is a numbers game for almost all finds, and a good likely location, ...the more pings your coil comes across in the shortest amount of time equals more targets aquired, and a higher skill set achieved rapidly. An old guy told me when I was new to "dig 1000 pennies, and dig 1000 pulltabs" I busted rump to meet that goal, just pennies and pulltabs and whatever else I ran across...dang I learned what a penny and pulltab sound like! Three of them turned out to be class rings, (all returned) in my first summer of this addiction...I think maybe we think century days are a once in a while accidental occurance, well, just hang around and watch some of the posters here that do it consistently, I'll bet you a dollar they are swinging a light fast unit and stabbin' with a screwdriver! Anyway, for gold rings...sheesh, they can be just about anywhere, so for me yes, a little thinking about the location, some concentration on the signals, and a lot of running and gunning. Its a matter of coil to ground time and odds...Sooner or later, a fellow runs coil over a big honker...lets face it, theres no gold sitting around in the house.
Mud

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Critter, as you have correctly surmised, when it comes to swimming beaches, the odds are simply much better, per the ratio of coins and other targets, for jewelry, to begin with. This is because the very NATURE of swimming beaches, is most condusive to jewelry losses. Eg.: a) people frolicking their hands in cool waters, which shrink fingers. b) people taking off their jewelry for "safe keeping" before they go in for a swim (and hide it in their shoe or hand it to their friend to hold, or whatever). c) people lathering up with slippery suntan lotion (rings slip off easier) d) people thrusting their hands in and out of the sand while make sand castles and such (pulls rings off) e) people throwing balls and frisbees and thrasing about f) people lying in un-natural prone positions, either while sunbathing, or swimming, where things like necklaces and bracelets are no longer gravity downwards. And lastly, quite frankly, sand is easier to dig in

But when it comes to land, keep in mind that some land sites are ALSO going to be more condusive to jewelry loss ratios, than other forms of land hunting. About the utmost worst sites for park turf, is going to be around picnic/eating/cooking areas. Anywhere people BBQ (like around those upright park bbq stand things) is an automatic recipe for introducing foil (people bring meats wrapped in foils to cook), and other foods that are wrapped in foil (candy, sandwiches, etc...). Also the mere fact of picnicking is an automatic for tabs, since people drink their sodas around picnic tables as well. Thus it's going to be your most foil and tab ridden section of park turf, wherever picnic tables, and BBQ areas are. Stay away from them if you're doing anything but coin hunting in high disc, lest you go crazy!

Contrast this to a turf zone that is strictly sports related (like soccer fields, for instance). Since no one "picnics" in the middle of soccer fields (not normally) nor cooks or eats where there's no tables, it stands to reason there's less foil, and tabs out there. Also the fact that frolicking sports (volley ball, soccer, and perhaps a bit of football and baseball) naturally imply frolicking and thrashing your hands about, taking spills on the turf, etc....

So you see, even restricting the conversation to land, still leaves wide latitude of types within that category.

As for the numbers odds, once you get to where you're going to be a "hero" and lower your disc. in the turf: The TID numbers game is nothing new. WEeeaaayyy back in about 1982 or '83, when the very first TID machines came out (The Teknetics, soon followed by the 6000 Di 3), it was even mused that there had to be certain TID's that were more likely to be junk, verses rings, and so forth. For example, the round tab (assuming un-broken, and containing the beaver tail), would give a consistent TID range every single time. Or a tab with no beaver tail, seemed to give another consistent TID. So you could theoretically nix out *just* those TID's, and save a lot of grief (since statistically very few rings would fall into those precise zones).

There were actually people back then (and I suppose still to this day), who made lengthy "ring enhancement" programs to try to solve this very riddle. Especially when programmable machines like the Eagle, XLT, etc... came out. The "ring enhancement" programs worked like this: Someone would take hundreds of random gold rings (I guess they had a friend who owned a jewelry store! haha), and would make copious notes of the exact TID of each one. Then conversely they'd take hundreds of randomly occuring junk items encountered in a junky park, if someone were to only knock out iron. Then by carefull comparing all the TID results, and putting them on a computer spreadsheet study, they could come up with the most likely #'s to ACCEPT, verses the most likely numbers to REJECT.

But the reality of it is, that this sort of "goes out the window" if you're in an area where there's no rhyme or reason in foil wad sizes, and where cans mixed it up with lawnmowers (can slaw). Because let's face it: there are places where can slaw simply reads all over the spectrum.

But interestingly, those ring enhancement programs could and did work for some, to leave a lot of trash, and up their odds, if they were in parks where the junk items were fairly consistent, and cans don't tend to mix is up with mowers. That plus simply being a better turf zone, and there is some truth to playing the odds.

For me though, if I was that h*ll bent on finding gold rings, I wouldn't be hunting park turf to begin with. Seems much easier to simply go to a swimming beach, and then you can dig ALL the low conductors. I happen to be near the beach, but the same is true of inland states. Because even lakes and creeks have swimming beaches, right?

 

[Mike Hillis]

Tell you a secret. I don't hunt for rings, I hunt for ring sites Once I have the site located and verified, I then use the most efficient machine/coil combination on it. Sometimes its the Golden, sometimes its the F5. Sometimes it is going to be the DFX.

I don't really play a numbers game at all.

HH
Mike

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Mike, you are absolutely right when you say:

" I don't hunt for rings, I hunt for ring sites "

All too often, md'rs give the advice that the way to find gold rings, is to lower your disc, (or play with TID odds) and go out, and dig trash till your arms fall off. And as you know, this is simple folly. I mean, it's ALREADY a "given" that you can't high disc, and expect to find gold rings. Duh. So rather than telling people that the way to find gold rings is simply lower your disc, the BIGGER part of the correct answer is WHERE you search. Some places (particularly swimming beaches, sand volley-ball courts, wrestle-pits, etc...) are going to be better odds than a junky blighted ghetto park's picnic table area.

Yet this rarely gets mentioned. Whenever the subject of "how can I find more gold rings?" comes up. The answers given the poor soul is always "lower your disc. and dig 1000 pieces of junk". Doh!

 

[Dodqe]

Anyone ever hunt a 'pick your own' apple orchard? I would think that would be comparable to a beach... Beach sand is easier to dig, but more trash. People bring food there. Orchard, harder dig, far less trash. Food's already there!

Lots of orchards around the Hudson Valley, NY. Tons of people come here from NYC during apple season. I might give it a shot after I get my hands on a new machine.

 

[Critterhunter]

Apple or other fruit trees...For one, when they are in bloom in the spring it's a great way to spot old homestead sites long since abandoned in the woods. The fruit trees they planted stick out like a sore thumb in bloom. Second, what do people do when picking fruit? Often they are bending over and picking ones off the ground too. Stuff falls out of shirt pockets and such. Any time I find a fruit tree in the woods I always hunt around it, not to mention look for nearby signs of an old homested. Also, nut trees are good to hunt around too. Walnuts and such. People from days gone by picking them in the woods off the ground around them. It's good to know the growth rate of various trees to indicate what ones are old enough to have say coins dropped around them in the 1800's and such. Not all trees grow at the same rate. A big fat walnut tree you can't put your arms around is probably at least near 100 years old for instance maybe. Apple trees don't get real huge, but when they get big you know they are old as they tend to be slow growers too. Say one about as big around as your thigh is probably easily 30 or 40 years old or more. Oak trees are slow growers. Find a big trunk about as big around as a garbage can and it could be pushing 100 or more. Watch for them in lines in the woods. Often they lined a property or the road that went to the homested. Another tip is to watch for younger growth in a squarish area among older growth. This could indicate an old homsted house site as well. Read the trees as well as the land.

 

[dixiedigger57]

beep=dig as Monte says the best discrimination is your own eyes. or something like that. one place my buds hunt is loaded with iron- artifacts from 1861-1865 event, worth way more than coins. out there it is beep=dig! Mike is right location is a large percent of sucess.

 

[Ism]

One other observation on rings, they will be a solid hit. Unless they are cracked or broken, they won't give jumpy numbers (If you use ID) or crackling broken "single tone" or "multiple tones" if tone ID.
So you can really reduce the trash that is dug if hunting turf rings.

I only hunt gold rings/jewelry in sports activity locations. I also found most rings in the top 3-4 inches of turf. They get caught up in the grass roots.
About 10% of the rings I found were deeper. That may be due to my hunting style but thats what I've found.
Gold/silver chains were never more than 4 inches deep. But just recently I dug a silver ID bracelet 33g at about 8-9 inches.
I believe its because of the location being landscaped for a park.

 

[Smudge]

Depth is a tricky thing. You may be passing over deeper gold jewlery because it is being masked by other garbage, or the detector cannot recover fast enough to find mutiple targets in a small area.

Also, once you hit about 6" in depth, target ID really starts to break down and become inaccurate.

That is why for jewelry hunting, I prefer smaller, 5" coils.

 

[jackintexas]

Don't mean to sound bragging.But I have found over 100 gold rings. And I agree..Location...location....location.....Jack

 

[jackintexas]

I do not have the time or the back to dig every pull tab in a park. I go where where I think gold items may be lost. Tot Lots- volleyball courts-along soccer sidelines. Anywhere where there is action. I don't believe anyone while walking in a park a ring slips from their finger.I know it may have happened, but not very often....Jack

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jack, I had the opportunity to work a scraped parks (dated to the 1870s) in San Francisco (they were scraping to prepare for artificial turf). So since it was a demolition site, we treated it with "relic mindset" (since the place was all torn up anyhow). We dug every conductive target, and were rewarded with hundreds of silver coins, wheaties, IH's, V's, buffalos, etc.... And I saved every single target, for an entire week, just for a scientific study, so-to-speak. At the end of that week, I had an entire box of junk (you know tabs, can slaw, slag, etc...) I counted something on the order of 1000+ pieces of trash, over that week's hunt. And the entire amount of gold found by doing this "dig all" routine in a junky blighted park? About 5. This would simply not have been worth it, if it weren't for the fact that the turf wasn't all bladed up.

This particular park happened to be a blighted area of town, and wasn't specifically a sports-venue field anyhow. But if you go to a more upscale park, that has sections specifically for sports (where it's not for picnics, etc...) then your junk ratio goes down, and your jewelry ratio would go up.

But even better than any turf anywhere, is always going to be swimming beaches. Oh, and avoid the swimming beaches that allow beach bonfires, as that is an instant recipe for junk! People throw in their cans to the fire, and presto, can nuggets everywhere. Also they cook foods wrapped in foil, and so forth, whenever beach fires are allowed. So the preferable beaches would be ones that have wading, sunbathing, volleyball, and no fires allowed.

 

[Mike Hillis]

Replaced the Golden with the DFX.
HH
Mike

 

[jackintexas]

Hi Tom: For several years we had quiet a drought. What used to be swimming areas were then dry land. That is where I found most of my gold rings. Several people in the DFW area found more than me. We have many man made lakes. They all have designated swimming areas. Since then we have had a lot of rain. I have not found a gold ring now for about six months.. But at 79 years old I don't hunt like I used to. Hard to get up and down......Jack

 

[Beale]

It is funny but most of my rings have come from areas that ar activity spots. I am a land hunter, no swim holes near me. I will add that the rings I have found in activity areas have been a higher ratio than non activity zones. I have several rings that I have found in spots though tat are non active areas. Beale.