C$ vs Older Unit technology of years ago for old coins in trashy sites......

[Anonymous]

I was thinking that so many sites have been hunted with older units 30 yrs or so ago and compared to todays technology in metal detecting they had to have missd quit a bit of goodies which are now deep inthe ground.....but not to deep for a unit like the C$ which has the ability to disect deep targets in trashy areas.. this is a big reason why I like the C$...so I can go back to those great sites of yesteryear and rehunt them deep to get what they missed. It will take extreme concentration and the knowing of the C$ language but should be very very productive if performed properly .....What are you thoughts on this way of thinking?

 

[Anonymous]

But it's not always depth that will get ya the remaining goodies. At trashy sites like a cellar hole say, there are plenty of good targets that were just masked by the iron. They are not nessisarily deep...just the older units had so much trouble in the iron, stuff like 1/2 reales & 1/2 dimes are still there now. (sometimes even large cents gut missed). The Coinstrike is the <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">fastest</span> TID I ever tried. Meaning it's awsome in trash becsue what you see on the screen is what you get, or "real-time" response. There's no digital delay at all like most other target ID brands, or even the CZ-7a has. Same with the Excel. Ya can look at the screen while ya swing & see all kinda negative numbers popping up but not making a sound. It's a great silent search unit. Yes, it will go plenty deep too. Even the Excel surprised me today for depth. It nailed an 1812 cuff button on sens. 7 & the 8" coil. The signal was also checked with a CZ-7a & a 10.5 coil. You'd think the CZ with bigger coil would have hit it better...but the Excel gave the better tone.

 

[Anonymous]

Hello BL,
You made the statement "Even the Excel surprised me today for depth. It nailed an 1812 cuff button on sens. 7 & the 8" coil. The signal was also checked with a CZ-7a & a 10.5 coil. You'd think the CZ with bigger coil would have hit it better...but the Excel gave the better tone."
Could you clarify as to what the actual depth was, and the approx. diameter(size) of the button was? Keep thinking about an Excel for working in trash when the Tejon just gets too noisy.
Thanks,
BarnacleBill

 

[Anonymous]

actually it was my buddy's signal so I have no idea how deep it was. It was a small cuff size button....& I imagine pretty deep considering the weak signal 2 diff. Fisher's gave off. I should have taken a depth reading (Curious myself). He got it with the Excel he was using for the first time, & the tone was so weak he was not gonna dig it. I had my cz-7a at the time with 10.5 coil & he called me over to ask if "I would dig that". I was just surprised the 7a didn't give a better tone than the Excel, that's all, having the big coil on vs. the Excel 8" coil. I told him we were in a Colonial field so dig it & see. Turns out he got the best button of the day! <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=""> The Excel was only running 7 sensitivity. Maybe 9 sens could have really nailed it good? But yea, the Excel is more known for what it can do in heavy trash than for super depth. The C$ has always been billed as being deeper, but the little Excel held it's own that time depthwise, & I really don't feel like I'm stepping down much when I use it. HH, Bill

 

[Anonymous]

[No message]

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Bill,
The Excel is mighty tempting, but with winter laying across the White Mountains, I will probably wait till spring to purchase one. Maybe the flame decals will frighten away the black flies, yeah right!
BarnacleBill

 

[Anonymous]

<img src="/metal/html/lol.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":lol"> <img src="/metal/html/cry.gif" border=0 width=40 height=15 alt=":cry"> <IMG SRC="/metal/html/fisher.jpg" BORDER=0 width=60 height=13 ALT="f~">