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.
:unsure:Monte, what are your thought about this story?
- Thread starter markg
- Start date
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
I think Dankowski has spent a lot of time confirming what we have all known for many years. To find it all, you have to dig it all.
How hard do you want to work to find masked targets? Dig 1100 trash items for 50 keepers in a ball diamond...........no way. In a 1800's picnic grove..........I might. In a 1854 college.....you bet.
I have been hunting that college for 15 years and the more I hunt, the more I find. But there is a point of diminishing returns. I'm down to a small DD coil to get in between the trash and I have dug several 5 gallon buckets of trash to get to what's under the trash. I will continue to hunt that place for another 15 years if I'm able and allowed, I just don't spend as much time there as I used to. There are too many more productive places to hunt.
I too, am interested in Monte comment, just thought I'd throw in my $.02 worth.
How hard do you want to work to find masked targets? Dig 1100 trash items for 50 keepers in a ball diamond...........no way. In a 1800's picnic grove..........I might. In a 1854 college.....you bet.
I have been hunting that college for 15 years and the more I hunt, the more I find. But there is a point of diminishing returns. I'm down to a small DD coil to get in between the trash and I have dug several 5 gallon buckets of trash to get to what's under the trash. I will continue to hunt that place for another 15 years if I'm able and allowed, I just don't spend as much time there as I used to. There are too many more productive places to hunt.
I too, am interested in Monte comment, just thought I'd throw in my $.02 worth.
the key phrase here to quote Larry is, "diminishing returns", and the mindset of the individual. There are, as Larry mentioned, situations and/or locations that make it worthwhile and the decision on what they are remains with the individual. Personally, through the years, the attraction of spending a good deal of time looking say for a Barber dime after removing five pounds of trash at at the very limits of my equipment has worn thin. I guess I can blame it on age if nothing else. I actually have found that for me recovering the odd piece is much more satisfying than the Barber dime. But take note, I am speaking for myself.
Pap
Pap
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
I think you speak for thousands Pap.
Bill in Texas
New member
Through the years, by far the best Items that I ever found was after I cleaned the trash of the top of them. The problem is finding the area that has the good items. With the advent of discriminators, most of the indicator coins and items have been dug without removing little if any trash. Soooo not only does the trash hide the good items, but now-days the trash also hides a lot of prime hunting areas that still have fabulous items in them, but that is OK by me. You see years ago, I learned to use my head instead of my detector to find good Item hunting areas. Lots of those areas that I have had great success in where considered hunted out. But the tons of trash told me that they were not. Now don't get me wrong, I don't go around cleaning trash out of a lot of areas, just the ones that my head tells me are the good ones. By the way I am 72 years old and don't like to dig all that well because of bad hips. I have been a metal detector hunter for 40 years. One time I cleaned trash out of a 8 foot by 14 foot area and found maybe 40 pounds of very good valuble targets of several types. I worked this area just because of a couple of indicator items I found in the trash and the location looked very good. Bill in Texas 
Inca, Silver Umax, VaqueroHowdy Y'all
I thought I'd throw my two cents in here as well ,I have read posts on various forums about detecting techniques people use to find the "deeper" and thus "older" silver coins.Some detectorists advocate passing up shallow coin signals and going after the deep signals. This is usually in a park type setting,with lots of aluminum trash and clad coins everywhere, which is good and fine for their style of hunting.
I hardly ever hunt parks as it is not my cup o tea, I prefer older home sights and picknick grove type of places to hunt, and when detecting such a sight I don't pass up those shallow coin signals. I have found some nice silver coins in the shallows before,and also have found some nice silver under shallow modern coins.Once I found a large penny signal in an old yard that had produced many wheat pennys and mercury dimes at, this signal in discriminate mode was larger than what a coin would make and pinpointed weird. Buy raising my coil several inches in pinpoint mode I knew there were several shallow pennys under my coil. After digging a handfull of copper memorials, I thought I had cleaned up this little spot.Nope!! the next signal I recieved on my Toltec II really got my attention, it was one of those softer, small mellow signals that everyone likes to hear. It turned out to be a nice 1905 Barber quarter at about 7 or 8 inches deep.If I had'nt take the time dig those undesirable shallow penny signals, I would'nt have that Barber quarter in my collection! Just a few thoughts on a different type of masking. HH...........Hombre
I thought I'd throw my two cents in here as well ,I have read posts on various forums about detecting techniques people use to find the "deeper" and thus "older" silver coins.Some detectorists advocate passing up shallow coin signals and going after the deep signals. This is usually in a park type setting,with lots of aluminum trash and clad coins everywhere, which is good and fine for their style of hunting.
I hardly ever hunt parks as it is not my cup o tea, I prefer older home sights and picknick grove type of places to hunt, and when detecting such a sight I don't pass up those shallow coin signals. I have found some nice silver coins in the shallows before,and also have found some nice silver under shallow modern coins.Once I found a large penny signal in an old yard that had produced many wheat pennys and mercury dimes at, this signal in discriminate mode was larger than what a coin would make and pinpointed weird. Buy raising my coil several inches in pinpoint mode I knew there were several shallow pennys under my coil. After digging a handfull of copper memorials, I thought I had cleaned up this little spot.Nope!! the next signal I recieved on my Toltec II really got my attention, it was one of those softer, small mellow signals that everyone likes to hear. It turned out to be a nice 1905 Barber quarter at about 7 or 8 inches deep.If I had'nt take the time dig those undesirable shallow penny signals, I would'nt have that Barber quarter in my collection! Just a few thoughts on a different type of masking. HH...........Hombre
I think the detectors he used in the staple test virtually assured the result he got. I've had five CZ's, two Sovereigns which has the same electronics as the Excalibur, and a 6000 DI Pro and I don't doubt the results he got with those detectors at all. Not long after that article was published there was a short discussion about it on Carl's forum that led to some of us duplicating the staple/dime test Dankowski did as closely as we could. I got basically the same result with a CZ 6a he got with the three detectors he used, but a Gold Mountain GMT 1650 with disc set to just reject a 16 penny size rusty square nail pretty much ignored the staple, regardless of how the nail and staple were positioned, except for an occasional break in the signal and a slight loss of depth. Others said the Compass Scanners did better than the detectors Dankowski used, as did an Amigo II, which was basically the Compadre electronics in a different case/pole setup, and a Whites Classic III. Ground conditions do play a big role in those type tests though, which means the results I get in my virtually mineral free ground and what Dankowski got wherever he was, might not be the same results someone else in a different location can get with the same detectors. As for cleaning out the ballfield, he certainly earned whatever he found
.
.[size=large]One key reason is that several of the other responses touched on my basic reply.
To be honest, I try not to respond to questions related to Tom Dankowski's article because ... well, let's just say 'because' and let that be it.
When I read this the first time a while back, just as when I read any one's article or a post on a forum, I try to eliminate the meaningless comments first such as:[/size] ("I recovered a 1952 silver dime, face down.") [size=large]It doesn't matter if it was face up or face down, it's the same target and has nothing to do with his story.
Once you eliminate all such statements in an article, then you have to take a look at the particulars of the experience they are trying to convey, and then pick it apart. Be analytical about what's being reported. I mean, I'm not the greatest write or the best at conveying my every message/thought, but that doesn't mean I can't pick things apart and questions it. For example, in the second paragraph I read:[/size]
At a local school in Titusville, Florida I detected a weak, yet consistently repeatable coin signal from my detector. Before recovering the target, I thought this very deep coin signal would be a perfect opportunity to test every possible control panel set-up configuration of the detector. My learning curve was complete, finally! No adjustments to the control settings improved the signal to any greater extent. I then recovered the target. I recovered a 1952 silver dime, face down. At less than 3" deep, I was absolutely stunned on how weak the signal was. I instantly (and incorrectly) lost confidence in the detectors abilities. I placed the dime back into the 3" deep hole and passed the standard 8" coil over the silver dime. The detector nearly gave me an overload signal. That's more like it, I thought! I then put the grass plug back into the hole, covering the dime. Now the signal nearly disappeared again. Confused, I removed the grass plug and passed it over the coil. No signal. The plug was clean. Disappointed, I pocketed the dime, covered the hole and moved on. Less then one minute later, I received another identically weak signal. At 9.5" I recovered a worn 1928 mercury dime. It was less then 4 feet away from the first dime in the same type of low mineral soil conditions. Wow! What is this inconsistency?
[size=large]He said he had about 200 hours on the Fisher CZ-6a and his knowledge and learning curve were virtually complete. Yet, he said he got a detected a weak, yet consistently repeatable coin signal and was surprised that the dime was only 3" deep. He didn't comment on what the Coin Depth reading was, and if he had a weak, deeper-sounding coin-like signal, it seems like he might have checked the coin-depth. No comment about that.
After about 200 hours of knowledge he instantly (and incorrectly) lost confidence in the detectors abilities which doesn't sound, to me, like a very savvy detectorist who has been master a detector. I would have immediately asked "why?"
Dankowski continues this same paragraph stating: Confused, I removed the grass plug and passed it over the coil. No signal. The plug was clean. Well, the knowledgeable detectorist, of the average hobbyists with a bit of field time, ought to know that you sometimes can, and sometimes can't get a signal on a coin you can see in an open hole, and that replacing the plug/dirt, you might be able to get a response. All makes and models are different and a lot depends upon the detector in question as well as the search coil and set-up.
But with these statements, he on;y said he passed the grass plug over the coil and, getting no signal, determined the plug was clean.
Well, if I had a weak signal on a shallow 3" silver dime, then I would question the plug and check it in an All Metal mode, but T.D. didn't state that. The suggestion would be that he checked it in the motion Disc. mode he was hunting in. Also, I didn't see what Disc. level he was using and if it was too high, that can also lend itself to some target masking issues.
Less than a minute late and only 4 ft. away, according to his story, he found a deep silver quarter. being that close, and only a minute away, he could have turned back to the plug where the dime came from and check it in All Metal since he apparently didn't the first time.
So, by the end of the fist lengthy paragraph I didn't know what it had to do with the topic of "getting technical" and, as I continued, I read statements that could be questioned:[/size]
In a professional test garden, [size=large].. What the heck is a "professional" test garden? A test garden is a test garden, and I'm not big on them anyway because they don't duplicate "real world" detecting encounters,[/size]
I buried a tiny staple (slightly rusted) from a standard household stapler.[size=large].. Who cares if it is "slightly rusted?" Besides, a rusted staple is more difficult to detect than one that is 'clean'. And, how did he come to pick a standard household staple in the first place? It's not like household staples are in high use and readily discarded in sites hobbyists generally frequent. Why not use a more common-size nail?[/size]
((It is important to understand that the United States dime has become the national test standard for testing and comparing most general purpose detectors)).[size=large]... Who in the world, or in the United States, says the US 10
To be honest, I try not to respond to questions related to Tom Dankowski's article because ... well, let's just say 'because' and let that be it.
When I read this the first time a while back, just as when I read any one's article or a post on a forum, I try to eliminate the meaningless comments first such as:[/size] ("I recovered a 1952 silver dime, face down.") [size=large]It doesn't matter if it was face up or face down, it's the same target and has nothing to do with his story.
Once you eliminate all such statements in an article, then you have to take a look at the particulars of the experience they are trying to convey, and then pick it apart. Be analytical about what's being reported. I mean, I'm not the greatest write or the best at conveying my every message/thought, but that doesn't mean I can't pick things apart and questions it. For example, in the second paragraph I read:[/size]
At a local school in Titusville, Florida I detected a weak, yet consistently repeatable coin signal from my detector. Before recovering the target, I thought this very deep coin signal would be a perfect opportunity to test every possible control panel set-up configuration of the detector. My learning curve was complete, finally! No adjustments to the control settings improved the signal to any greater extent. I then recovered the target. I recovered a 1952 silver dime, face down. At less than 3" deep, I was absolutely stunned on how weak the signal was. I instantly (and incorrectly) lost confidence in the detectors abilities. I placed the dime back into the 3" deep hole and passed the standard 8" coil over the silver dime. The detector nearly gave me an overload signal. That's more like it, I thought! I then put the grass plug back into the hole, covering the dime. Now the signal nearly disappeared again. Confused, I removed the grass plug and passed it over the coil. No signal. The plug was clean. Disappointed, I pocketed the dime, covered the hole and moved on. Less then one minute later, I received another identically weak signal. At 9.5" I recovered a worn 1928 mercury dime. It was less then 4 feet away from the first dime in the same type of low mineral soil conditions. Wow! What is this inconsistency?
[size=large]He said he had about 200 hours on the Fisher CZ-6a and his knowledge and learning curve were virtually complete. Yet, he said he got a detected a weak, yet consistently repeatable coin signal and was surprised that the dime was only 3" deep. He didn't comment on what the Coin Depth reading was, and if he had a weak, deeper-sounding coin-like signal, it seems like he might have checked the coin-depth. No comment about that.
After about 200 hours of knowledge he instantly (and incorrectly) lost confidence in the detectors abilities which doesn't sound, to me, like a very savvy detectorist who has been master a detector. I would have immediately asked "why?"
Dankowski continues this same paragraph stating: Confused, I removed the grass plug and passed it over the coil. No signal. The plug was clean. Well, the knowledgeable detectorist, of the average hobbyists with a bit of field time, ought to know that you sometimes can, and sometimes can't get a signal on a coin you can see in an open hole, and that replacing the plug/dirt, you might be able to get a response. All makes and models are different and a lot depends upon the detector in question as well as the search coil and set-up.
But with these statements, he on;y said he passed the grass plug over the coil and, getting no signal, determined the plug was clean.
Well, if I had a weak signal on a shallow 3" silver dime, then I would question the plug and check it in an All Metal mode, but T.D. didn't state that. The suggestion would be that he checked it in the motion Disc. mode he was hunting in. Also, I didn't see what Disc. level he was using and if it was too high, that can also lend itself to some target masking issues.
Less than a minute late and only 4 ft. away, according to his story, he found a deep silver quarter. being that close, and only a minute away, he could have turned back to the plug where the dime came from and check it in All Metal since he apparently didn't the first time.
So, by the end of the fist lengthy paragraph I didn't know what it had to do with the topic of "getting technical" and, as I continued, I read statements that could be questioned:[/size]
In a professional test garden, [size=large].. What the heck is a "professional" test garden? A test garden is a test garden, and I'm not big on them anyway because they don't duplicate "real world" detecting encounters,[/size]
I buried a tiny staple (slightly rusted) from a standard household stapler.[size=large].. Who cares if it is "slightly rusted?" Besides, a rusted staple is more difficult to detect than one that is 'clean'. And, how did he come to pick a standard household staple in the first place? It's not like household staples are in high use and readily discarded in sites hobbyists generally frequent. Why not use a more common-size nail?[/size]
((It is important to understand that the United States dime has become the national test standard for testing and comparing most general purpose detectors)).[size=large]... Who in the world, or in the United States, says the US 10
Lessons learned; masking is unsuspectingly more prevalent then ever expected. Of the 39 additional coins recovered, most of them were well within (detectable) reach of the Fisher, but were masked. A few of the coins were deeper than the Fisher's capabilities. The SD2200d with its pulse induction will find many objects that would normally mask and silently mask other objects. By a large margin, the SD is the most powerful detector I have ever used; however, it is NOT designed for coin shooting. I strongly recommend against using this machine in an environment where discrimination is critical (most areas!).[size=large]... Most of the additional 39 coins were withing the reach of the Fisher CZ-6a, so if they were not recovered, and if it was caused by masking trash, you can't tell me that all of the 1100+ other targets were iron (ferrous) based metal. No way! I also find it hard to believe that you can COMPLETELY SANITIZE a site with the CZ in All Metal mode and still find over 1100 undesirable targets.[/size]
A thought to ponder
Nine (9) coins were found with the CZ. Thirty-nine (39) ADDITIONAL coins were (unmasked) found with special equipment. Forty-eight (4 coins in total. Looking at the ratio a bit differently; 9 of the 48 coins were detectable by a top-line coin detector. Thirtynine additional coins--- that's over 500% more coins,,,, were masked! Yes, unsuspectingly, this is THE norm![size=large]... Don't those NASA folks take any math courses? 39 coins found on the re-hunt compared with 9 coins with the Fisher is can be stated as follows:
A thought to ponder
Nine (9) coins were found with the CZ. Thirty-nine (39) ADDITIONAL coins were (unmasked) found with special equipment. Forty-eight (4
coins in total. Looking at the ratio a bit differently; 9 of the 48 coins were detectable by a top-line coin detector. Thirtynine additional coins--- that's over 500% more coins,,,, were masked! Yes, unsuspectingly, this is THE norm![size=large]... Don't those NASA folks take any math courses? 39 coins found on the re-hunt compared with 9 coins with the Fisher is can be stated as follows:Monte, the reason some of us don't reply is because we haven't "walked the walk" as far as testing and that is what makes your articles so meaningful to me-I learn from someone who has and it inspires me to find a little more on my own. I've gotten to where I will search in a/m at tot lots-it's just gonna have to be a while before I get enough strength to try it in an area where you have to recover with less than average soil conditions-where the grass has to be replaced and everything left as before you got there. I agree with that on the CZ-it's a/m mode would not pick up a small gold chain. On another occasion, my best friend and I volunteered our time at the local Sherriff's office inspecting the halloween candy for needles and other metallic objects while they were handing out toddler ID kits and fingerprinting the kids. A gentleman walked up and just happened to have a needle from a shirt he had just brought and wanted us to show how the detector worked. Imagine our horror when NO signal was given by either the 5" or 8" coil! We quickly started telling everyone that for safety reasons it was best to follow up with an x-ray at the hospitals (they were offering this that night, also)
Oops! I'm just as bad about FULL information. We WERE in the a/m mode when we checked the needle. It looked kinda like pewter or something like that-nevertheless, it would have caused internal damage. The CZ WOULD pick up bread ties and thin pieces of wire, but NOT that needle.
Uncle Willy
New member
Yeah Mone this story has more holes in it than a ton of swiss cheese. 
Bill
Bill
Bill in Texas
New member
Monte; Very good response! We are blessed to have someone with your expertise that will take the time to write such excellent notes on metal detecting. I have mentioned this before (about masking) with no response so I will mention it again. I have a silver dime (a junker) buried in my test garden at 5 inches with a paper clip buried directly over it at about 1 1/2 inches (they have been there awhile). Nobody, with any detector that they had, has detected it. I am a retired engineer and believe when doing a test, to do one thing at a time so the results are useful. Believe it or not a BFO kind of gave a indication that it was there. No PI detectors have passed over it at this time and I suspect that they might read it. None of the people that I know have one. Has anybody done a test like this with a PI? I have had newer detectors only a short time, but have had detectors for almost 40 years. Yep Monte I have horse traded up some. Bill In Texas Inca, Vaquero, Silver UmaxMike Hillis
Well-known member
and say that Tom wrote a very good, very informative article about masking that was easy to read and easy to understand. He did all the work and then put it down on paper so it could be a benefit to others. Free. He has done this many times.
Monte, you lost my respect. You don't do the tests and you don't write the articles that help others, especially the newbies that are looking for all the information they can find. Most of your posts are overly long, talk down any machine but the particular ones that in your opinion are the only ones that work (which for the record are mostly Whites) and generally discourage the folks that use something other than one of your favorites. Think I'm telling it wrong....go back and re-read them. There...how'd that feel?
Guess its not fair to just single Monte out in this particular rant. So let the rest of you go and put in a lot of work testing your units in real ground conditions, write it up in an interesting and informative manner and make it available for free to all so we can nic-pick your writing style, tell you how you are promoting and demoting different units and obviously don't have a clue about what you are doing.
Sheesh.
Give me a break.
Mike Hillis
Monte, you lost my respect. You don't do the tests and you don't write the articles that help others, especially the newbies that are looking for all the information they can find. Most of your posts are overly long, talk down any machine but the particular ones that in your opinion are the only ones that work (which for the record are mostly Whites) and generally discourage the folks that use something other than one of your favorites. Think I'm telling it wrong....go back and re-read them. There...how'd that feel?
Guess its not fair to just single Monte out in this particular rant. So let the rest of you go and put in a lot of work testing your units in real ground conditions, write it up in an interesting and informative manner and make it available for free to all so we can nic-pick your writing style, tell you how you are promoting and demoting different units and obviously don't have a clue about what you are doing.
Sheesh.
Give me a break.
Mike Hillis
First, to Bill in Texas-thanks for the info about the BFO. I'm starting to use mine in tot lots for the very fact that a paper clip will ever so slightly go into the null-barely noticeable- and yet you can put a PILE of them on a coin or piece of jewelry and the coin and ring will still be picked up. Also, it is the ONLY detector that I know of that will detect a fine gold chain while still not noticing small nails, paper clips,staples. I'm excited about my experimenting with it. I have to disagree-I don't feel that Monte is biased but only states his particular brands that he uses-like Tabdog is fond of his Tesoro and Uncle Willy is fond of his Garrett. To those who read this, they may think I have bonkers because I've digressed(?) to a '60's Garrett Hunter Dual coil BFO. But it's only for tot lots and schools, etc. where there is a high possibility of GOLD. The articles by Tab, Monte, Uncle Willy, and yes, Dankowski have ALL been informative and have caused me to search my own way to find answers. But I don't even think about the detectors or affiliations connected to this knowledge. That's what I did-I absorbed the knowledge from ALL of these thoughtful men and proceeded to find MY answers using their findings as a guideline. Now as far as his picking apart the info-he WAS asked-perhaps it could have been answered in a better format-I don't know. I will say it wasn't his usual style.
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
These Forums are a gathering of many people with many ideas. Some seek knowledge and some are willing to spend the time to respond. Some give short answers, some give long, some give the right answers and some are wrong. (Hey that rhymes 
). Monte is just being Monte and writes in his style with his opinions as we all do Mike.
Please don't criticize those who are willing to help others on these Forums. Those people are few and we have far too many "lurkers" now who are afraid to say ANYTHING for fear of being chastised. If you don't like Monte's, (or my) opinions.....................DON'T READ THEM. Those who donate their time and knowledge are essential to these forums. Without them we would have all readers with nothing to read.
Like Mama told me when little, If I can't say something nice about someone, It's best to say nothing at all.
). Monte is just being Monte and writes in his style with his opinions as we all do Mike. Please don't criticize those who are willing to help others on these Forums. Those people are few and we have far too many "lurkers" now who are afraid to say ANYTHING for fear of being chastised. If you don't like Monte's, (or my) opinions.....................DON'T READ THEM. Those who donate their time and knowledge are essential to these forums. Without them we would have all readers with nothing to read.
Like Mama told me when little, If I can't say something nice about someone, It's best to say nothing at all.