A
Anonymous
Guest
I have owned a Whites Classic 3 and gave it to my son. I am interested if anyone knows if the Conquistador is as good a machine for depth or if it might be better than a new Classic 3. Thanks for ny input.
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.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I would go with the conquistador, I have one and it is a great det..I sold my Whites to get the Tesoro conq..
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks for input Dirtman. This will be my backup detector, just do not want to blow it as I cannot afford to many!!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
I never used a Whites MD, but I have a conq (an orginal one) for more than 2 years now.
I can tell you this. its lightweight, you get a whole bunch of hours on one 9 volt, I have found some wheats and IH's at the 7 inch mark.
No learning curve really. Just turn on and move.
I can tell you this. its lightweight, you get a whole bunch of hours on one 9 volt, I have found some wheats and IH's at the 7 inch mark.
No learning curve really. Just turn on and move.
A
Anonymous
Guest
to my experience, the CLassic II is better. Deeper, a more options and you can read more into the signals.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks Chuck. Sounds are important to me. The older Classic 3 that I have gets downright excited when you pass over a ring with it. Just seems to be the nature of the machine, and I like that for sure.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sorry chuck but in MY area the whites II was not as deep as the conquistador or the SS umax,thats why it went bye-bye <img src="/metal/html/biggrin.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="
"> <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="">
"> <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="">
A
Anonymous
Guest
"to my experience, the CLassic {III} is better, deeper, more options, and you can read more into {or from} the signals." <img src="/metal/html/tongue.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":b"> As Dirtman says, I can only speak for MY area, of course. It's "possible" but, I find it unlikely, that the Conquistador would be the better detector in other places? Not that it's a bad detector, but I was just trying to answer a question unbiasedly. { Is that a word" Unbiasedly? <img src="/metal/html/confused.gif" border=0 width=15 height=22 alt=":?"> } If not, it should be I LIKE IT! <img src="/metal/html/grin.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":grin"> <img src="/metal/html/lol.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":lol"> <img src="/metal/html/glasses.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="">
">
A
Anonymous
Guest
the amount of iron trash present, in order to appreciate their differences.
The Conquistador is a very good detector. Lightweight, easy to operate, and it gets good depth, but it tends to be a little noisier in dense iron trash.
The Classic III isn't as light, but it balances very well. It is also easy to use and employs a circuitry design that is quieter in iron trash.
The Conquistador has a more <EM>saturated</EM> audio while the Classic III/Classic ID/Classic IDX feature a more <EM>modulated</EM> audio response. The differences in the amount of 'saturation' or 'modulation' can cause some people to beleive a particular model goes deeper or not.
Also, the Classic III can be after-market modified such that you have an external ground balance control.
By design, the Classic III has a broader range of discrimination and adjusts lower than the Conquistador, down into the all metal accept range.
Between the two, I favor the Classic III because I hunt a lot in iron-infested locations, such as ghost towns and some old renovation sites.
Both, however, have decent depth of detection and, if that is the only requirement you have, it is almost a toss-up. Almost. <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="">
<EM>Monte
The Conquistador is a very good detector. Lightweight, easy to operate, and it gets good depth, but it tends to be a little noisier in dense iron trash.
The Classic III isn't as light, but it balances very well. It is also easy to use and employs a circuitry design that is quieter in iron trash.
The Conquistador has a more <EM>saturated</EM> audio while the Classic III/Classic ID/Classic IDX feature a more <EM>modulated</EM> audio response. The differences in the amount of 'saturation' or 'modulation' can cause some people to beleive a particular model goes deeper or not.
Also, the Classic III can be after-market modified such that you have an external ground balance control.
By design, the Classic III has a broader range of discrimination and adjusts lower than the Conquistador, down into the all metal accept range.
Between the two, I favor the Classic III because I hunt a lot in iron-infested locations, such as ghost towns and some old renovation sites.
Both, however, have decent depth of detection and, if that is the only requirement you have, it is almost a toss-up. Almost. <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="
"><EM>Monte
A
Anonymous
Guest
I appreciate the information a lot. Think I am goig with the black machine.