Tiger/Sand Shark Users...

[cabochris]

I am wondering first about the Tiger Shark. Would everybody agree, based on what seems to be said, that the Tiger Shark is the hottest water machine on small gold and chains in freshwater? Will the Tiger really see chains other machines miss? If that is the case then I'm wondering it that would also be true in saltwater where ground mineralization is low? When I go on treasure hunting vacations in the Caribbean my group mostly finds gold rings and other larger gold items. Few gold chains are found using mainly Excaliburs. Every now and then a gold chain is found, but rarely without some sort of pendant attached. I once spotted an 18K very long but thin gold chain by sight, partially buried in the sand wearing a mask. Before I grabbed it I ran my 800 Excalibur coil over it and was surprised to hear nothing. Even with discrimination at 0! That turned out to be a $1,000 chain!

This makes me wonder just how many shallow chains I have passed right over with detectors that can not see them? I know why chains are difficult to detect and why I'm wondering if the Tiger might see more of those chains in saltwater? Or would the reduction of performance by the Tiger in salt negate the sensitivity edge on chains? Then what about the Sand Shark? The printed spiral coil is supposed to be more sensitive to smaller targets. Would that help on gold chains? Thanks CC.

 

[Hombre]

I don't know about saltwater use, but in freshwater

 

[scrooge]

I have heard that the Sand Shark is sensitive to small gold chains but have asked Sand Shark users to post concerning how it works in saltwater, there have been very few answers. I am currently using the Garrett Infinium and have found 2 small silver chains but no gold chains. If I find out the Sand Shark hits on small gold it will be my next machine.

 

[Gunnar MN]

yes it is a killer on gold chains and can hit them very deep I know of a dealer who put a small gold chain down to test and it kicked but on all the machines if you can go try it out It hunts in 12 khz same as the compadre and the compadre is really good at finding gold chains now the sand shark does way better its your machine bro tiger shark no doubt

 

[tvr]

I don't have a Tiger Shark but do have a Sand Shark.

Sand Shark will see smaller link gold and silver chains than my CZ's will, but it has it's limits.

Sand Shark will not see the very tiny link chains, gold or silver, that the Compadre, Cibola and Tejon that I have will see.

With the Compadre, Cibola or Tejon, discrimination can't be higher than low side of iron range. Heading even part way towards foil knocks the small link chains right out. They scream in all metal on the very small link chains down to a couple of inches. If they have bigger clasps, that helps to detect them deeper too.

I am guessing that the Tiger Shark will act more like the Compadre, Cibola and Tejon on small link chains.

I had a very similar experience with my CZ20 as you had with your Excal 800, but I was standing, and looking at 1/10 the value on the chain (it was short and 14k). That is still a lot of coins to dig to get to that value though.
tvr

 

[scrooge]

Don't know if I asked this before but how is the sweep speed on the Sand Shark? The infinium must be swung very slooooow....

 

[dahut]

The TS is based on the Bandido format. It hits pretty well on small gold items, from my experience.

As for chains, well, I dont think the Tiger Shark is better than any detector known to man on teensie gold chains. I know, this is a Tesoro forum and I'm supposed to slobber all over it. But in my experience with it, I would say that you can easily miss small gold chains, as they signal much like other trash. It isnt going to be a clear, concise signal... unless it has something attached to it. This is true, in or out of the water.

 

[cabochris]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not so concerned about small chains and more interested in chains in general in the salt. I wonder- if I went to a Caribbean shallow water beach with low mineralization and buried a variety of gold chains without pendants, a few inches deep in the sand underwater, Would a Tiger Shark see more chains than say an Excalibur or CZ21? Or does the saltwater mode reduce what the Tiger can see? Then how about a pulse Sand Shark with the claimed more sensitive printed spiral coil? I know there are pulse detectors more sensitive to gold such as the Detectorpro PI and Infinium- but perhaps the printed spiral coil on the Sand Shark might actually respond better to small targets- such as chains? I have a hunch that the Tiger Shark could respond to some saltwater gold chains my Excalibur can not see at all. There may be only one way to find out- try it on my next trip. It would be good to have a machine along that hits better on shallow gold chains. CC.

 

[dahut]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not so concerned about small chains and more interested in chains in general in the salt. I wonder- if I went to a Caribbean shallow water beach with low mineralization and buried a variety of gold chains without pendants, a few inches deep in the sand underwater, Would a Tiger Shark see more chains than say an Excalibur or CZ21? Or does the saltwater mode reduce what the Tiger can see?

Sadly, the Tiger Shark is not renowned for it's abilities in salt water. Despite Tesoro's promotional hype, the fact remains that it is a single frequency VLF detector - all of which are affected to some degree by the mineralizing salts in the sea.
Now, in the Caribbean, you might fare better, as ferrous mineralization (black sand) is not the issue as it is on the shores of the United States. Nevertheless, there are as many reports of poor performance with the Tiger Shark in the salt as good ones.

How about a pulse Sand Shark with the claimed more sensitive printed spiral coil?
I know there are pulse detectors more sensitive to gold such as the Detectorpro PI and Infinium- but perhaps the printed spiral coil on the Sand Shark might actually respond better to small targets- such as chains?
I have a hunch that the Tiger Shark could respond to some saltwater gold chains my Excalibur can not see at all. There may be only one way to find out- try it on my next trip. It would be good to have a machine along that hits better on shallow gold chains. CC.

A PI unit is a good choice, generally, but it offers the downside of reacting to all metals. In other words, you move a lot of real estate for the chance at a bit of gold. Meanwhile, your pouch bulges with the many ferrous E.O.'s, fish hooks and hair barrettes your coil passes over.

On a side note: non-ferrous trash items must not be considered as a factor, here, since all non-ferrous targets must be dug. However, there is far more iron/ferrous trash in the sea than one imagines. Some PI units have rudimentary iron discernment, like the Infinium. But, discrimination is hardly the science with PI's that it is with VLF detectors.

Personally, I prefer the discernment of the VLF. To date, the only ones that seem to have such discrimination in salt water down pat are the multi-frequency units. The Excal is one, so is the Fisher CZ-20/21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But there is another question to be considered - "How important is finding small chains?"
There is not much gold in them, truth be told. Even at today's gold prices, its doubtful that a even handful of them will amount to much. Meanwhile, you expend an awful lot of energy on the off chance of recovering them .

If you are keen to "get it all," then that may be good enough reason. A detector that can hit well on small chains would seem to be a shoe-in, since it should be able to hit all other targets better than anything else. But, again, in the practical world of surf detecting, that logic seems not to pan out.

I suspect other factors come into play, and chains are the least of the targets we should be concerned with.

 

[tvr]

Sand Shark does not need to be swept very slow to get good response on targets at good depth. But I wouldn't go out and rush it. A nice easy and comfortable sweep like you would get enunciating clearly and saying out loud 1000 left, 1000 right, 1000 left, 1000 right is a sweep that I think does fine. When I hear a threshold change, I slow down to recheck and then pinpoint. When in the water it is slower because of the drag.
tvr

 

[cabochris]

You make some very good points and the more I write and think about this helps lead to conclusions. I know for sure the Excalibur and CZ21 are blind to many gold chains. My Excalibur could not see that $1,000 (scrap value) long 18K gold chain I spotted by eye! At first and when I got no signal from Excalibur I thought the chain was junk. Only later did I discover it was 18K! And this was a rather large custom chain too. Long with big figure 8 links- but thin. I just can not stop wondering just how many such chains are missed?

I may have mentioned before that I once tried a customized for gold PI. My very first target was a gold chain in 2 foot of water that we had all been over before! I thought I was onto something and got carried away. I decided to dig every target response and for the next 2 hours I collected over 170 pieces of junk- not 1 more piece of gold! Then swapped the PI for the Excalibur and started finding gold again in the same area!? So I kind of feel a pulse detector is not the best choice for Caribbean treasure hunting vacations. There just is not enough time to dig all targets and perhaps better to cherry pick by tone with Excaliburs and CZ21s? Plus when there is surf digging can be difficult.

While I can not prove this, from experience I think most gold chains found by our group have not been very deep in the sand. All the gold chains I have hit have been just inches in the sand. I am wondering if chains float a bit in the sand because of more surface area by link and therefore do not always sink as deep as a ring would? In such case my Excaliburs will still pass right over most of them them- within inches! Only when there is a pendant or sometimes rings on the chain will my Excaliburs hit hard. Or if the chain is all balled-up.

Some Tesoros are pretty hot on gold. I used to nugget shoot with a Lobo ST before I discovered water hunting. It loved tiny gold! My Bandido MM II was always hot on gold range targets. I called it my Gold Donkey because every time I used it I knew I would find something good!

If I traveled to the Caribbean with a Tiger and Sand Shark, I wonder if I would be compromising too much? Perhaps Depth loss on rings with the Tiger and digging lots of junk with the Shark? On the other hand if both or either machine hit better on gold chains, I might clean house!

This is a tough call. I almost wonder if I should forget about chains and try to cover more ground for what we find the most of- Euros and gold rings. That is why I'm even open to trying a 1280X. As I mentioned before in another post I know a few who find gold with them in the Caribbean. One uses his 1280 because that is all he has and thinks our Excaliburs are too powerful and complicated! With such a simple detector one would only have to set it, then dig all solid/good sounding beeps. Rather than constantly interpreting Excalibur and PI tones all day. Might actually cover more ground that way and find more? Even with tone ID detectors one must dig medium and high tones as hi KT gold falls into that tonal range. I once dug a coin tone only to discover the largest gold wedding band I have ever scooped!

I'm still considering trying Tesoros. But I have to get over having to GB the Tiger VLF in the surf with sensitivity adjustment on the inside and/or digging more junk with Sand Shark PI... and short battery life on both machines. But if they find more chains, then it is worth it. CC.

 

[cabochris]

How would you describe the target response of the Sand Shark? That is do rings and coins give a nice smooth tone, while junk a more degraded sound? I have tried a few pulse detectors I found difficult to discriminate by ear with. On one even Bobbi Pins gave a nice round sound and i dug them for hours! CC.

 

[dahut]

If I traveled to the Caribbean with a Tiger and Sand Shark, I wonder if I would be compromising too much? Perhaps Depth loss on rings with the Tiger and digging lots of junk with the Shark? On the other hand if both or either machine hit better on gold chains, I might clean house!

I almost wonder if I should forget about chains and try to cover more ground for what we find the most of- Euros and gold rings. That is why I'm even open to trying a 1280X. As I mentioned before in another post I know a few who find gold with them in the Caribbean. One uses his 1280 because that is all he has and thinks our Excaliburs are too powerful and complicated! With such a simple detector one would only have to set it, then dig all solid/good sounding beeps.
I'm still considering trying Tesoros.

Try both and then you will know!

It really does baffle me that with all the sophistication the designers can bring to bear, you have one choice or the other: PI or VLF.
Neither of which is ideal and whcih forces you into trade offs.

Your chap with the 1280X might be on to something. I know I love them in fresh water.

 

[tvr]

I tried the Sand Shark in normal mode and did not find it's response to targets to be very expressive. Then I went to vco mode and I liked the change in pitch as well as threshold amplitude when near a target. I can not really separate the trash iron targets from non-ferrous targets from what the Sand Shark tells me.

Frequently, but not all the time, bobby pins and short pieces of wire do give double peaks or blips in one sweep direction and single peak or blip in the other; but then so did a silver chain I found with the Sand Shark.
tvr

 

[cabochris]

Thanks for all your help and input. I have always liked the way the Tiger Shark and Sand Shark break down small and easily for travel. I have also had good luck hunting with Tesoros in the past. Over the years one learns more about detecting and is why at the time I sold my Tiger and a used Sand Shark I once owned. I simply did not know any better. I recall when testing them in my yard I felt at the time they did not go as deep as some other detectors I had. I was used to the fa-nominal air test of a CZ20 on silver and was turned-off by other machines that could not come close. But I discovered everything is relative- to actual field performance. I found in the salt I had to cut CZ20 sensitivity way back and lost some depth. When I tried an Infinium I had the deepest water detector I have ever used and spent 20 minutes or more recovering pull tabs in the surf! I learned that I could find more with My Excalibur simply because I would cover more ground, rather than digging holes to China- (on short vacation time)

So raw depth and top performance are not always the most important. I think a positive attitude along with a machine you can become 1 with is. That means one has to like that detector, even with its quirks and flaws. I would put up with having to GB a Tiger in the surf and know my sensitivity control is on the inside, if the Tiger hit better on chains. Same with the shorter battery life of the Sand Shark. If I used both detectors by searching a particular beach first with a Tiger and then again with the Shark for deeper targets the second time around, I would have to learn both machines. Just detecting with a 1280X would be easier. Then I also have to decide on coil size for Tiger and Shark, and would more than likely settle on 8 inch for both. Even though a larger coil might cover more ground? But the larger coils might give up some sensitivity to chains in salt?

This morning I am leaning towards trying the Tesoros. More than likely I would have my answer after next trip. I know what we find with Excaliburs, and they are the benchmark for me. Other water machines have a tough act to follow. (keep in mind this is in the Caribbean in shallow water- in other parts of the world other detectors might work better?) I have mentioned this before on the forum. When I first started water hunting I had an Excalibur and a Tiger Shark. The Tiger was my back-up because all said the Excalibur was better. A fellow treasure hunter along swore by his CZ20s, but on this trip both his detectors died. Reluctantly he used my Tiger Shark. He simply could not stand the idea. But after a couple of hours he returned with a huge gold ring and a thick gold bracelet found with the Tiger! He still did not like the Tiger and I was envious of the wonderful finds! So I know for sure that in the right hands a Tiger Shark will find gold in the Caribbean surf and may just have to see if the Tiger and Shark are gold magnets! CC.

 

[cabochris]

That is good to know. I guess with a Sand Shark one should dig most targets. I'm not a regular pulse user so I dig lots of junk with them. Perhaps with experience one could learn to discriminate by ear? For the most part at the saltwater beach I do not object to digging junk targets. The anticipation of what one has discovered adds to the fun. Plus in theory by digging all targets the more valuables one finds. But when my time is limited such as on a Caribbean treasure hunting vacation, I think one can find more gold by cherry picking targets to dig. I could be wrong because luck also plays into the picture (sweeping your coil over ground/target at the right time). But I recall one time with a pulse I hit a coin bank and dug one coin after another because I had to. Who wants coins when there is gold to be found? I only dig coins when good targets are few and far between. With the pulse machine I had to dig all the targets because I was hoping to find a gold ring or 2 in that deposit. If I had had my Excalibur, I could have just dug mid-range gold tones and ignored the coin tones- which were mostly pennies. In the end I ran out of time to dig all those targets with the pulse.

Yet, the idea that the printed spiral coils on the Sand Shark may be more sensitive to smaller targets intrigues me. I may just have to try one! CC.