Splitting Hairs On Gold Rings. Some Rather Shocking Statistics On Just Where Most Gold Rings Fall. It Ain't What You Probably Always Thought!

[Critterhunter]

A friend found over 100 gold rings over the years water hunting with an Xcal digging all signals above iron, junky sounding or not, so this test pool of rings isn't biased by digging only good sounding targets or certain conductivity zones. I've seen test pools of rings graphed percentage wise in the past, but since they were largely the result of selective digging the data is biased. This one isn't, and that's why we compiled a chart of these rings.

We also compiled a chart of randomly found round and square tabs, and then ran the numbers to compare for instance notching out tabs. Even using the notch raised just high enough to kill a 165 tab VDI # (on a GT) and blocking out 84% of all know tabs, the vast majority of gold rings would still be recovered from the site. While you wouldn't want to do this beach hunting, in a park loaded with millions of tabs avoiding the tab range will greatly alter the trash to treasure ratio for you and still recover most of the rings.

Further "selective digging" criteria would also have to be used to cut down on the trash. For instance, most of the rings would lock onto one or two VDI #s no matter which way they were swept, where as trash, especially oddly shaped trash, will vairy (at least on the GT) by 3 digits or more. Further restrictive criteria could be applied by the sound of the target. Only a handful of rings would bounce by 3 digits or more, and that same small amout of rings would also have a rather sick or warbly sound to it, while most of the rings have a round, smooth, soft, "quality" sound to them.

Now, you may not find this very interesting being that this information appears to be compiled VDI wise for one machine, but read further. Below you'll find a graph where the percentage of rings fall on the conducitivity scale in terms of the foil, nickle, tab, and other ranges. As you can see, there are more rings in the foil range than even the nickle and tab ranges combined. Digging the nickle zone is a rather poor strategy when ring hunting. However, it is useful even to me when I only plan on coin hunting but will take a chance on a nickle number, as that could be an old nickle, maybe a ring, or at least I should have the satisfaction of standing up with a clad nickle.

Although, you have to adjust this generic listing of the conductivity/ring percentage scale to various machines. For instance, with lower resolution on some machines than the Sovereign what others consider the "nickle" zone or "tab zone" might be a much wider net of targets, and so for instance the nickle zone on one machine might well drop down into well into the foil range. On the Sovereign foil starts at about 60 or so on the VDI, and the target range up of low to mid conductors ranges all the way up to about 178 where copper pennies start. Nickles are usually about 144 to 146, but old degraded ones can read as low as about 136 or 138 on the VDI. For that reason the following chart has the official nickle range from 139 on up to 148 (though it's rare for a nickle to read higher than 146, or as low as 136, or at least I never had dug one that read that high or low). Tabs start at 148 and go up to 169, so these zoned off conductivity zones are pretty clear cut using high resolution, with enough fine detail to crunch the numbers in pretty good clearity in terms of conductivity zones.

The original thread is here. It's rather lengthy but through out it various graphs are used to display the data in various ways. Later, towards the end of the thread, bar graphs are used to more visualy represent where the rings fall on the conductivity scale. It's much more telling to view the data that way.

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1096415,1101102#msg-1101102

We also scanned these rings onto an Etrac and created a few graphs for that. That information can be found in the Etrac forum in this thread...

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?63,1377441,1377441#msg-1377441

 

[Critterhunter]

I apologize if this is rather redundant is some respects, as I am just re-posting another message without editing out information that was already covered in the above message...

While the original two thread's intent was to chart VDI numbers on rings and tabs for the Sovereign and the Etrac, I feel you'll find this data useful to the other machines as well. Further into it, on page 2 the graph for the tabs can be seen and where they fall percentage wise. It's unexpectedly a bell curve.

Anyway, the first page or two of this thread shows actual Sovereign VDI numbers. On page 3 of the thread you can see that I broke that VDI range down into more understandable (generic) numbers in terms of where the foil range, the nickle range, the tab range, the coin range, and so on falls on the Sovereign...And thus what percentage of rings read "in the foil range", and what percentage reads "in the nickle range", and so on for application to other brands and models of metal detectors. Shockingly, for example, 47.1% of all gold rings fall in the foil range. Even more shocking, only 9.1% fall in the nickle range. And for further jaw dropping statistics, only 31.4% fall into the round and square tab range. Many people would have suspected that most gold rings fell in the tab range or perhaps the nickle range. So, even if you combine both the nickle and the tab range, that still is not as high of a percentage of rings as there are in the foil range. That alone should blow a few people's minds. But, as I think I already said, it all depends on the resolution of your machine. if your nickle zone is much lower and higher than where nickles really read, then you will of course find more rings in the nickle zone. But, even if that's the case, you'll find that the vast majority of rings are still probably going to be in the foil range below it.

Obviously, keying in on the "nickle zone" is a rather poor choice in terms of percentages, but it's still fun to do when only coin hunting and so perhaps you might pop an old nickle or a ring, if not at least a modern nickle. But, keep in mind that these "zones" depend largely on how high the resolution is on your detectors. All coins above copper penny are compressed into the 180 VDI #, but foil starts at about 60 and ranges up to a copper penny at about 178 or so.

Zinc pennies read around 173 or 176 on the 180 meter. From 170, so just a hair below zinc penny, all the way up to 180, there are only 12.4% of gold rings that read that high. I bet many would be shocked that as low as that is, it still is a higher percentage of rings than what read in the nickle zone. More details at this link. The third page has this data on it in a chart, but the prior pages as well as ones after page 3 also have various charts displaying that data in various ways. Later in that thread I started showing various target ranges via bar graphs, which gives a very visual representation of these numbers on the spectrum of the conductivity scale.

Foil on my machine has a good bit lower tone than the nickle range of numbers, so it's rather easy to note and avoid or dig if you want. What I've found is that odd shaped blobs of foil (thus being most foil found at a site) will give a rather sick warbly sound to it. Not only because the foil is oddly shaped, but also because the foil has surface "hills and valleys" or fine ripples running through it. Thus, gold rings that read well down into the foil range *usually* have a nice smooth, warm, round, "quality" sound to them, while most foil won't. The rings will tend to lock onto one or two VDI #s no matter which way you sweep, while the foil, especially odd shaped for and other odd shaped junk as well, will tend to roam by 3 digits or more depending on which way you sweep. Rings, like coins, being round, should most lock onto one or at the most two VDI #s no matter which way you sweep. Out of over 100 gold rings we tested there was only a handful that sounded sick or warbly and also would roam by 3 digits or more in VDI. These were rings with fine webbing or many holes in them. Even a super thin gold ring won't do this warbly/sick/roaming thing. It's due to the nature of the ring structure that'll make them sound like odd shaped trash.

 

[marcomo]

Interesting post, Critterhunter. Thanks for sharing.

 

[slingshot]

Yes, confirms my findings that the majority of my gold has been in the foil range. I keep my Ace in coins mode withe the foil icon added and use this as my "customs" program at such sites.

 

[mudpuppy]

Hmmm... Did the 15 rings in the zinc range weigh more combined than the 57 in the foil?
Mud

 

[Critterhunter]

Hmmm... Did the 15 rings in the zinc range weigh more combined than the 57 in the foil?
Mud

Mudpuppy, perhaps not. But I'm glad you asked that question, as a similar point was just raised elsewhere in certain respects, so I'll defer you to that thread (see below) for potential answers to that question. I'll just say don't be so sure for now, and further answer yours there...

I made the mistake of posting a few threads in a few forums with the above messages (slightly edited for forum content). Mainly, here, the Sovereign forum, and another forum. I should have posted this condensed data from the super long original "Splitting Hairs" thread and just posted in one place and then provided links to it, so that all the conversation or debate on the pros and cons could take place in one spot. For that reason, to this thread and another thread, I am linking them both to one place in an attempt to not try to keep more than one ball in the air at the same time. Never should have done that. On that note, here's a condensed data thread to further conversation, as well as further potential merit to concentrating on the foil zone first and foremost when conditions permit, but of course adjusting to other zones when conditions (trash) change the variables. Hopefully any further discussion, pros/cons, or debate can be held in that one place...

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

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Critter-hunter, this is nothing new. Weeaaaayyy back in about 1982 or '83, when the first TID machines were hitting the market, there was several persons who attempted to chart a myriad of gold rings, to see if there were any patterns they could figure out. Some people even went out and made "ring enhancement" programs (like for when the programmable Whites Eagle came out). I guess a guy, if he knew someone who owned a jewelry store, could sit there and wave hundreds of ring samples, and chart them all. Then he'd take all the commonly recurring junk items typically encountered in the field: tabs (of the usual recurring sizes), nickels, foil, etc.... Then it's simply a matter of sitting down and making an "odds" (aka "enhancment") chart to see what signals are the best to dig, verses the best to avoid (Las Vegas style, haha).

But in actual practice, there was still no end to junk you'd dig in a typical blighted urban park. Especially when you add in can slaw, which has no rhyme or reason, and can be endless sizes. Or molten aluminum globules (near camp fires and BBQ stove pits) which exactly mimic anywhere you can imagine on the screen. So the "trick" would only work if you were in a zone where the junk were relatively consistent, with un-bent un-chopped tabs, and smaller foil wads (vs. big ones).

And now today, we add in 2 dimensional TID (up/down AND left/right) on machines like the explorer. And you can go a step further and factor in "tones and sounds" (like you say odd-shaped variable multi-tone ones, which don't appear to be round or consistent). But you WILL miss gold that doesn't happen to be perfectly round or consistent. And don't forget: rings don't always sit flat in the ground (to mimic air test results). They tent to tilt toward the crown end. A friend of mine sleuthed this out years ago in San Jose, CA: He "made it his mission" to take a part of a park where he'd mined lots of silver out of, and strip-mine every single signal out. He had, prior to this, gone high disc. to just get the coins. But he reasoned "there must be old nickels too, and some gold rings in here". So over the course of months, he gridded off a section, and dug every single signal, no matter how flitty or small, in a given section. In the end, after countles apron loads of aluminum and junk, he did get some gold rings by doing this. And since it was a serious study on his part, he even made meticulous note of how deep each item was, it angle, etc... He noticed by careful extractions that whenever he'd gotten a ring with a crown on it (one end heavier than the other), that they'd invariably be tilted to the heavier end! That's going to skew the "round" sound, just so you know.

Oh, and he also determined that it simply wasn't worth it, to try to get gold rings in this fashion (and worthless orange cruddy buffalo nickels). It was far wiser, if gold rings are a person's goal, to simply go to swimming beaches

 

[Critterhunter]

Tom, I mostly agree with your thoughts. However, there are still a few things that can be learned by graphing rings in this way. Primarily, dismissing the myth that the nickle zone seems to have the most gold ring potential, or even that the tab range would probably have the most. I bet most people would not believe that, at least according to our numbers, there are more rings to be found from just a hair below zinc penny all the way up to a silver coin, then there are in the nickle zone. Again, that all depends on just how wide of a window a machine's nickle zone is, and probably the reason why the old myth about gold rings being hot in the nickle zone, as on machines with low resolution there would of course be more rings to fall into that zone, but still probably not as many as there is in the foil zone.

If anything, these numbers illistrate that it's a viable strategy to target the conductivity zones based on avoiding the most common trash zones at certain sites. Many would think that if you avoid tabs in a park loaded with them you'll be missing most of the rings. That simply doesn't look to be the case (if these numbers are to be believed). So, at a site where there are thousands of tabs but little foil, there is merit to digging the foil zone as well as the nickle zone, and vise versa at sites with lots of foil but perhaps little in the way of tabs. Or, at least at sites that are full of foil and tabs, there is merit to digging just a hair below zinc penny and on up from there, while perhaps throwing in the nickle zone as well to widen your potential pool of rings.

The proper strategy on a beach is of course dig it all since it takes little effort, but on the other hand there are those who avoid hundreds of zinc pennies on the beach and dig everything else, or even avoid all coins zinc and higher dig everything else. I know of one guy who says his beach is loaded with tabs beyond belief, and at least the numbers imply that you can avoid those and still get the majority of the rings present.

Of course when land hunting, besides using a fluid stategy to avoid a certain zone of common trash, the other major key is location in that you can greatly improve your odds by zeroing in on spots where there is more potential for ring loss. Horseshoe pitts, around basketball courts, volley ball courts, ball diamonds, behind the kiddy swing where mom is pushing her baby on it from behind, etc. I even had heard that the grass strips at the edge of parking lots are good places for rings, as people will be reaching in their pockets for their keys and thus might slip a ring off their finger as they pull their hand out of their pocket.

As far as rings being on edge somewhat, of course that is going to happen. Not all rings are going to be laying flat. However, that still puts them down probably well into the foil range for potential discovery if you are digging that zone.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi Critter, You say:

"Many would think that if you avoid tabs in a park loaded with them you'll be missing most of the rings. That simply doesn't look to be the case "

Yes, and the yester-year "ring enhancement programs" determined just that very fact: Given the "odds", (the statistical percentage) of rings that actually fell into the round tab range, it was determined you would loose only a small percentage of gold rings, by nixing out that TID range. Sure, some read in that range (let's say it's even as high as 10%), but given the "odds", if you're doing a program, logic dictates that given the time you'd spend digging tabs, it's better to nix this category, to up your odds, by the end of the day, to actually have gold. Because, let's face it: If you're in a tab-ridden park, you can spend all your time on your knees digging tabs (for that lone gold ring that *might* read in that range), or you can increase your odds by having more swing time, and focussing on signals that have a higher percentage chance at being a gold ring.

But this all goes "out the window", if you have a park with can-slaw, and molten aluminum nuggets (from campfires, BBQ stands, etc...). So in that case, you're right: disc. patterns are almost a mute point. The BIGGER factor to "finding gold rings", is WHERE a person hunts. Sand volley-ball courts and sand wrestle pits. Swimming beaches, (which are a recipe for jewelry loss, afterall), etc....

 

[Critterhunter]

Yes, not dismissing the merits or pros and cons to various strategies. They all play a part. There are, however, sites I hunt that are for instance loaded with round and square tabs, but have little in the way of foil or even can shards. Then, on the other hand, I have a few sites that seem to be full of foil or other small bits of aluminum, but oddly are devoid of much in the way of tabs. Then there are sites where zincs aren't in high numbers, so it would be potentialy useful to target just a hair below zinc penny (or, in other words, just a hair above your highest pull tab numbers), and dig all targets from there on up. The strategy has to be fluid in order to play the odds the site is giving you. As for tabs, we graphed in both square and round tabs to find those numbers, and what percentage of rings would be lost by avoiding that entire zone of round/square tabs.

Another tactic for gold ring hunting is to gauge the depth of the oldest of tabs, meaning the round ones, and then to dig all the "tab" signals that sound deeper than that at the given site. This is also useful for foil, as there reaches a point in depth where foil no longer exists due to it being deeper (and thus older) than when foil become common place. In effect, you are traveling back in time by going deeper, to avoid certain layers of particular trash that is found at certain depths at a site.

A friend used this to his advantage about a month or so ago at a site we were hunting. This soil was rather packed with heavy clay, and so the max depth of round tabs and much of the aluminum or foil junk was about 4". During that hunt, he came over with a smile on his face and showed me the top half of a gold ring that was perfectly cut in half probably by a lawn mower I would guess. You could tell the ring looked old based on the style of the initials on somebody's name on the crown. I asked him what that ring read as and he said well below nickle. I thought about it for a second and then asked what possessed him to dig that signal. Oh, he said, it was deeper than the tabs or other aluminum and foil junk that we've been finding at this site.

He used his head and a fluid strategy to adapt to the location. Had I been "thinking" that day maybe I wouldn't have gotten skunked, because I kept wandering around looking for a classic deep coin signal. Obviously in this soil there wasn't much potential for super deep silver, and that in fact the depths they were able to sink to in this soil would have still put them in reach of just about any detector on the market (say roughly 5 to maybe 6" max). Since all those were probably long gone, I should have spent my time looking for the only silver that probably still was left. That being coins on edge or badly masked, or in other words I should have been looking for any bad or iffy coin signals and digging those, even if they sounded very shallow, as they could easily be old coins at even shallow depths due to the nature of this soil, and being masked or on edge would probably be the only ones left there to find.

I am trying to use this strategy more and more at my sites that don't have the potential to sink coins beyond say about 7" or so. 7" in my soil is still a feat for some cheaper machines, but there are a handful of good higher end detectors that can break that 7" barrier in my soil and get coins even deeper. So, at sites where I know coins are limited to around 7" or less, I'm no longer going to waste my time looking endlessly for a deep good coin signal. Instead, I'll seek out and dig the iffy ones due to being on edged or masked. At sites where I know coins can sink well beyond 7"...Well, that is where *in my soil* only a handful of detectors can get say 8" or deeper, and thus those are the places I'll be still looking for those super deep coins. But at my sites that coins won't really sink beyond about 7", it's largely a huge waste of time these days to be looking for that lone deep clean one. 6 or 7 years ago I could still find those 7" clean silver signals at those sites, but these days it's a pure rarity to find one of those at these shallower sites where they max out at 7" or so.