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.
Old Technology left behind...
- Thread starter landman
- Start date
Sven
Well-known member
Here's something I remember from the 70's.
I found more coins with the Whites Coinmasters that includes silver coins.
I found the most relics and oldest coins with the Garrett Master Hunters.
My friend found the most silver coins with a Fisher 555.
My relic finding club member used the Garrett Groundhog to find small silver coins and relics from the War of 1812 and silver prospecting.
The older Garrett Master Hunters and Groundhogs as well as their clones by D-tex and Gold Mountain and then the Fisher 555 were killer machines.
And they still can be if you find a good performing one these days. And can rival some higher end detectors of today in all metal mode. Where they suffered
and still would today is depth in disc mode. These models were before disc motion machines and ran TR Disc.
I found more coins with the Whites Coinmasters that includes silver coins.
I found the most relics and oldest coins with the Garrett Master Hunters.
My friend found the most silver coins with a Fisher 555.
My relic finding club member used the Garrett Groundhog to find small silver coins and relics from the War of 1812 and silver prospecting.
The older Garrett Master Hunters and Groundhogs as well as their clones by D-tex and Gold Mountain and then the Fisher 555 were killer machines.
And they still can be if you find a good performing one these days. And can rival some higher end detectors of today in all metal mode. Where they suffered
and still would today is depth in disc mode. These models were before disc motion machines and ran TR Disc.
MarkCZ
Well-known member
Whites XL-Pro has a cult following.
The biggest problem with many of the VERY old units from the 80's was their size and lack of depth. That said units like the Teknetics 8500, 9000, Mark I, Eagle, and the Condor were simply amazing!
I found the Whites 5900 DI-Pro sl to be a really good detector and even for its weight it was pretty easy to handle.
The Fisher 1265, and the 1266 are legendary units too.
Mark
The biggest problem with many of the VERY old units from the 80's was their size and lack of depth. That said units like the Teknetics 8500, 9000, Mark I, Eagle, and the Condor were simply amazing!
I found the Whites 5900 DI-Pro sl to be a really good detector and even for its weight it was pretty easy to handle.
The Fisher 1265, and the 1266 are legendary units too.
Mark
I believe you're talking about a Compass 77b (or perhaps their 94b) . Circa 1971 to 1974-ish. They didn't have any discriminator on them, except that by their very nature (all-metal TR), they would null out over individual nails. Only when iron approached the size of RR spikes, or domino sized-or-larger pieces of cast-iron, would the iron give signals (but you could tell from the sound that it was still iron). For individual nails, they nulled out. And when you put a coin under as much as 3 nails, you would still get a conductive signals. Only by the time you added the 4th nail, would it be masked entirely (no signal).
Today's best 2 filters can perform this "trick" with only 1 to 2 nails placed over a coin. By the time you add the 2nd or 3rd nail, the coin will be masked.
But the benefits of that nail-see-through trick was where it ended. In all other ways it was/is a dinasour. Lacks depth, poor in minerals, no other form of disc. or ID, a bear to keep balanced, etc.... Was a good ghost town machine though, that's for sure !
Today's best 2 filters can perform this "trick" with only 1 to 2 nails placed over a coin. By the time you add the 2nd or 3rd nail, the coin will be masked.
But the benefits of that nail-see-through trick was where it ended. In all other ways it was/is a dinasour. Lacks depth, poor in minerals, no other form of disc. or ID, a bear to keep balanced, etc.... Was a good ghost town machine though, that's for sure !
Can't remember the Compass model i had but i do remember it was a VLF and you're right about the ground balance issue. Never could get that thing to ground balance.
Most hi-end modern detectors do alright nulling or signalling a fresh nail as iron. Its them dam pesky deep severly corroded nails that'll sometimes spoof conductive is where they have problems. Not only can they spoof conductive, worse they can spoof silver.
To add insult to injury those 100+ year old silver coins usually lay near those deep corroded nails. Yeah there's ways to test like 2-way sweeps, drifting pin points, warbling tones, etc. but deep small stubby corroded iron can fool the detector and the detectorist.
Most hi-end modern detectors do alright nulling or signalling a fresh nail as iron. Its them dam pesky deep severly corroded nails that'll sometimes spoof conductive is where they have problems. Not only can they spoof conductive, worse they can spoof silver.
To add insult to injury those 100+ year old silver coins usually lay near those deep corroded nails. Yeah there's ways to test like 2-way sweeps, drifting pin points, warbling tones, etc. but deep small stubby corroded iron can fool the detector and the detectorist.
HighPlainsHunter
Well-known member
My very first detector that I bought in 1972 was the Compass 94B. I believe I paid $129 for it, and really had a hard time justifying spending that kind of money on such a frivolous toy. Living in the north suburbs of Detroit at that time, I had no problems with the ground. I could set the threshold to the minimum and lift the coil straight into the air without a quiver in the sound. I found so many silver coins with that machine that I thought that was just normal. Didn't really have as big a trash problem back then either. People didn't just throw everything on the ground then, and respected their surroundings a lot more than today. I didn't realize there was ground you couldn't hunt with it until I moved to Colorado in 1975. Man, what a rude awakening I had. I just about gave the hobby up as you couldn't get any depth, if you moved the coil up, or down, a half inch the machine went nuts. It wasn't until the first VLF/GEB detectors came out that I was able to get comfortable hunting again. The silver once again jumped out of the parks, etc. for many years before everybody, and their brother, got into the hobby. How times have changed...
reddirtfisher
New member
YES... 
I am glad you asked this question. I was watching YouTube and saw some of the videos done on the " Monte Nail Board " tests. The newest detectors could not pick up coins close to iron objects but the older models did ! 
I had a Bounty Hunter DE 280 VLF / TR that could pick up coins and jewelry directly under large rusted objects !! Unbelievable 
JimGilmore
Active member
I find that statement about any detector "I found more coins with x than any other".... suspect...
Unless the person is being Naive.
NObody found the coins till detecting began.
The coins sitting in the ground accumulated till detecting began and then they had first shot with X...
Everything that comes after has a much smaller amount of coins to look for. And the amount of trash to sift through is still piling up on top of anything thats left.
Unless the person is being Naive.
NObody found the coins till detecting began.
The coins sitting in the ground accumulated till detecting began and then they had first shot with X...
Everything that comes after has a much smaller amount of coins to look for. And the amount of trash to sift through is still piling up on top of anything thats left.
BarberBill
New member
Was at a planted hunt over the weekend and happened to ask one of the regular, very successful, participants why he continued to use his old Compass (don't know the model) when he could use any detector he wanted. His answer was that it was the most "dead on" pinpointer he had ever used and had a very rapid retune as well, so as long as it worked he'll keep using it.
BB
BB
They all had non motion discrimination at that time. Some also had iron discrimination in the all metal mode either by the way the coil was wound or by using an offset between the internal coils.
A few models had retune adjustment on the tip of the handle so that adjustment could be made on the move with the edge of your thumb and that provided an almost pencil point audio track across the target so the shape could be traced for best I.D.
"Improvements" always had their drawbacks. The Whites 6000 Di brought in a full Di system (which worked to a degree) but the original Series 2 with its full time depth reading but no Di, had undocumented advantages such as being able to indicate the difference between smaller targets near surface and tin lids/coke cans etc at depth. Saved a lot of time and digging !
Motion (S.P.D.) machines did away with the audio blast when a coil was lifted whilst being swung but was that really an improvement ? The old machines taught you to sweep low and level maximising depth and not using filtering meant maximum depth was obtained across the FULL width of the coils sweep not just part as with modern machines.
A few models had retune adjustment on the tip of the handle so that adjustment could be made on the move with the edge of your thumb and that provided an almost pencil point audio track across the target so the shape could be traced for best I.D.
"Improvements" always had their drawbacks. The Whites 6000 Di brought in a full Di system (which worked to a degree) but the original Series 2 with its full time depth reading but no Di, had undocumented advantages such as being able to indicate the difference between smaller targets near surface and tin lids/coke cans etc at depth. Saved a lot of time and digging !
Motion (S.P.D.) machines did away with the audio blast when a coil was lifted whilst being swung but was that really an improvement ? The old machines taught you to sweep low and level maximising depth and not using filtering meant maximum depth was obtained across the FULL width of the coils sweep not just part as with modern machines.
Southwind
Well-known member
OK let's think about this a little. So you believe a detector company would give up "better technology" and make less efficient detectors? Take the tin foil hat off a minute and think this through. I'm just pretty sure if, for example, non-motion discrimination was all that and a bucket of cheese we'd still see it today. A little common sense can go a long ways. Sure I'd like to think my old TR had better separation than any of todays technology rich machines, but I'd only be fooling myself.
I used many of the older detectors from BFO through TR, VLF, TR Discrimination & VLF to VLF Discrimination. They suked compared to even the entry level machine made today. Kind of like asking was there any television technology back 30 years ago that is better than todays? Um.... NO. Why would you even expect that to be the case?
Like all other technologies the manufacturers kept the good stuff, improved on it, and moved on.
I used many of the older detectors from BFO through TR, VLF, TR Discrimination & VLF to VLF Discrimination. They suked compared to even the entry level machine made today. Kind of like asking was there any television technology back 30 years ago that is better than todays? Um.... NO. Why would you even expect that to be the case?
Like all other technologies the manufacturers kept the good stuff, improved on it, and moved on.
As it happens I still have many of the older detectors going right back to the 70's and yes for ease of use and or to cut weight/battery consumption detectors often did take a step back as they continue to do so today. Your small list of detectors show you have moved backwards yourself, V3i gone, DFX kept.
XLT was a later detector therefore has to be better than the Spectrum so why did so many move back to the previous model ?
Why are there so many searching E-Bay and the forums to buy older models or regretting selling machines they had in the past ?
Why has there been a resurgence in sales of the Nautilus DMC with prices doubling in the last three years ?
XLT was a later detector therefore has to be better than the Spectrum so why did so many move back to the previous model ?
Why are there so many searching E-Bay and the forums to buy older models or regretting selling machines they had in the past ?
Why has there been a resurgence in sales of the Nautilus DMC with prices doubling in the last three years ?
Southwind
Well-known member
Your assumptions are totally misguided Brain.
First off I have yet to see any detector manufacturer take a step back. Your opinion does not fact make.
Why own a $1,500 detector when the same thing can be accomplished for $400? The V3i is a fine machine but I only used it for tot lots and yards. The DFX can do the job and still allow me to own more detectors. It's called being practical. I was hoping the V3i could do the deep like my E-Trac and the gold like my DFX. It couldn't.
I owned the XLT and was not impressed at all. It was little more than a smaller version of the Eagle Spectrum. I already had a Eagle Spectrum I had 5 years on, and it is easier to sell a newer machine than an older.
Not sure what Internet you look at but that sure isn't what I'm seeing on my Internet. And I assure you I watch it closely. I got plenty of older machines I'd be more than happy to sell or trade to those looking for "older models" LOL.
Never heard of the Nautilus DMC. Is that a band? I'm in America and I use what works in American soil.
I'll extend the same invitation to you I have to all others. You come to Dodge City and we'll take your old machines to our local city park. If you walk away with even half of what I do I'll pay for your entire trip. Only had one person take me up on it so far. He brought some really nice old machines down and went home very empty handed. I marked out 3 targets with my new machine I felt would be coins and had him try them. His machines called them all junk but 1 which he thought was iffy. They were all coins. In fact one of the last things he said to me before he left was "Maybe I need to take another look at these newer machines."
I like nostalgia as well as the next guy but I'd rather have the best tools for the job instead.
First off I have yet to see any detector manufacturer take a step back. Your opinion does not fact make.
Why own a $1,500 detector when the same thing can be accomplished for $400? The V3i is a fine machine but I only used it for tot lots and yards. The DFX can do the job and still allow me to own more detectors. It's called being practical. I was hoping the V3i could do the deep like my E-Trac and the gold like my DFX. It couldn't.
I owned the XLT and was not impressed at all. It was little more than a smaller version of the Eagle Spectrum. I already had a Eagle Spectrum I had 5 years on, and it is easier to sell a newer machine than an older.
Not sure what Internet you look at but that sure isn't what I'm seeing on my Internet. And I assure you I watch it closely. I got plenty of older machines I'd be more than happy to sell or trade to those looking for "older models" LOL.
Never heard of the Nautilus DMC. Is that a band? I'm in America and I use what works in American soil.
I'll extend the same invitation to you I have to all others. You come to Dodge City and we'll take your old machines to our local city park. If you walk away with even half of what I do I'll pay for your entire trip. Only had one person take me up on it so far. He brought some really nice old machines down and went home very empty handed. I marked out 3 targets with my new machine I felt would be coins and had him try them. His machines called them all junk but 1 which he thought was iffy. They were all coins. In fact one of the last things he said to me before he left was "Maybe I need to take another look at these newer machines."
I like nostalgia as well as the next guy but I'd rather have the best tools for the job instead.
I think you're getting things mixed up here. No one is disputing you that detectors have become MUCH MORE ADVANCED , every decade, for the last 40 or 50 yrs. That's a given. Yes today's "toy" is superior to the top-of-the-line from the 1970s or '80s. Sure. But you have to keep something in mind: When some of the awesome advances/increases in depth or disc. were made, there were indeed some minor "drawbacks" or "gotchas" involved. Sure the over-all newer product was superior. Sure. But there were traits that were lost, as things that you "couldn't have the best of both worlds". And since "depth" and "TID/disc" is always the mantra (desired over everything else by us md'rs), then .... it was only natural that yester-year's shallower-seeking, and those lacking any form of disc (other than to perhaps tell nails apart) was .... of course ... destined to be dinasours.
However: That DOESN'T mean that those yesteryear machines didn't have some traits that today's machines don't. And it WASN'T (as you say) because the manufacturer "chose to fail to continue a desirable characteristic". I'm sure if it was electronically/scientifically possible, they'd have held on to the "best of both worlds". But that's not always possible.
For example: A truck might be great for hauling rocks or dirt, right ? A corvette might be great for acheiving 140 mph, right ? A mini-van might be great for taking the kids to soccer practice, right ? But nothing does everything all at the same time.
There is indeed some traits of yesteryear machines, not replicated on modern machines. Not because of anyone's choice to purposefully leave those traits behind. But just in that when something newer was introduced, it often-time meant an entirely new design (motion versus non-motion, etc.....) All in all, you're right: We have better machines. But no, that's not to say that there is zero old machines that can't spank a new machine, is some super specific niche category of need/use.
However: That DOESN'T mean that those yesteryear machines didn't have some traits that today's machines don't. And it WASN'T (as you say) because the manufacturer "chose to fail to continue a desirable characteristic". I'm sure if it was electronically/scientifically possible, they'd have held on to the "best of both worlds". But that's not always possible.
For example: A truck might be great for hauling rocks or dirt, right ? A corvette might be great for acheiving 140 mph, right ? A mini-van might be great for taking the kids to soccer practice, right ? But nothing does everything all at the same time.
There is indeed some traits of yesteryear machines, not replicated on modern machines. Not because of anyone's choice to purposefully leave those traits behind. But just in that when something newer was introduced, it often-time meant an entirely new design (motion versus non-motion, etc.....) All in all, you're right: We have better machines. But no, that's not to say that there is zero old machines that can't spank a new machine, is some super specific niche category of need/use.
Southwind
Well-known member
I guess it would depend on how far back in time you went Tom. Say 20 years ago I'd agree there hasn't been all that much advancement with the exception of features. Now go back 30 years and I would be inclined to say I can't think of one single ability then that lacks being better today. Of course, being in a location where my choice of machine was a bit limited I well may have missed some goodies. Mostly used White's, Garrett's, Tesoro's and Compass's. Back when the key to depth was tuning your detector as close as possible to the ground and maintaining that height during the swing. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go back to that technology. Now in the late 80's early 90's there were some awesome machines, like the Eagle Spectrum, that could run a good race with even some of todays machine when it comes to pure depth in good soil, but even today's entry level machines have faster processors and can handle bad soil better than the best could back then.
I think a lot of people take some of these new detectors for granted never having to have dealt with a TR machines. You were lucky to get 3" in hot soil until VLF came along. And then it was still slow as a snail compared to todays machines.
I think a lot of people take some of these new detectors for granted never having to have dealt with a TR machines. You were lucky to get 3" in hot soil until VLF came along. And then it was still slow as a snail compared to todays machines.