Covering Ground Vs Going For Depth

[Steve Herschbach]

Jason made a comment on another thread about the virtues of not getting bogged down hunting small gold. I wanted to comment without getting off topic so here goes.

In my opinion big nuggets generally go to the first coil over them. They are big and so kind of hard for any good detector to miss.

Let's say there is a nugget that a detector can hit at 20". That means as long as any of those nuggets or larger exist in the top 20" you get them.

Now you go back and hunt with a machine that can hit those same nuggets to 24". The problem is for all intents and purposes you are now detecting only 4" of additional depth, and the odds of one of those targets being in 4" of ground is far less than the odds of one being in 20" of ground. And in fact due to the way many desert placers form, your odds are even worse because many desert placers get leaner the deeper you go. Those big deep nuggets of your imagination may just not be there, as has been proved by many (not all) failed bulldozer pushes.

There is therefore a lot to be said for Jason's method of covering lots of hopefully virgin ground fast with larger coils to go for the larger gold even if you give up some depth doing it. I spent much of my detecting career hunting like that. The problem is pretty simple. It is getting very hard to find virgin ground that has good enough gold for this method. Days if not weeks can pass between decent finds, making this only for people with lots of time and extreme patience.

My method now generally has shifted to cleanup mode. Hunting slowly and methodically chasing smaller gold with the GPZ with the idea that any deeper nuggets I get over will take care of themselves. Oftentimes for most well hunted areas that means only getting small gold but at least I am finding gold, and the GPZ hits about as small as anyone could wish. And if a larger one comes along I have high confidence I will nail it easily enough. As anyone can attest however, those big ones are getting very rare.

Novices in particular I have to recommend slow and careful, going for the small stuff. Finding gold, any gold at all, is an extremely important confidence builder and essential if the novice is not going to quit the game after only a few outings. If money is no object, there in my opinion is no surer way to get some gold than to get an SDC 2300 and go as slow and as methodically as possible with it. If you can't find gold with a 2300 you are in entirely the wrong locations, or electronic prospecting simply is not for you.

[fredmason]

So true, Steve;

I had visions of big, deep nuggets waiting for me and the gpz; they are still visions! Yes, for the amount of time I put into detecting I have found decent gold. Some of those nuggets were very deep but not the multi ounce giants I dreamed of. So, until I pass over that thumper (I know it is coming) I remain happy with one great detector that finds them small and finds them all...I hope.

fred

[Norvic]

Most of the time for me covering ground is the go over depth, because I mainly hunt virgin ridges, plus I cannot recall the indicator piece on a patch being over say an ounce, most times it is a sub grammer, it is when cleaning up patches I go for depth, where downhill below the smaller stuff on the ridges there is depth.

Going for one or the other depends on the country you are searching also, as the country I do has very few alluvials, ridges are the go but not always, I guess being flexible is the real go.

[DolanDave]

Hi Steve,

  I have had the same train of thought, going low and slow over pounded out areas, but a while back while I was hunting Gold Basin, (a real hard pounded out area), a young man I ran into was using a minelab, showed me the amount of gold found , and his method was go fast !!!  He found more gold in 1 weekend, than I found in the last 3-6 months going slow.  So I decided to put this to the test...and hunt fast. I found 3 times more gold hunting fast, so now I have stuck to this way of hunting. I still do the low and slow on washes I have already visited.

Dave

[Steve Herschbach]

I don't think any method is better than another per se - it is determined by the ground and therefore the opportunities you have available.

My motto - "Whatever Works"

[PeterInSa]

Re ( There is a lot to be said for Jason's method of covering lots of ground fast with larger coils to go for the larger gold.) Agree but I cannot do it with the Z14, Am Ok with the 45 and a large coil. 

[LipCa]

I don't know that much about PI coils but I was always under the belief that the further you got from the coil, the smaller the response area?

If that were true, when you are going fast and not overlapping (and overlapping again), wouldn't you have a good chance of not even hearing a big, deep target? 

[PeterInSa]

I think if I was going fast with the Z14 I would probably miss this "Zed Warble" signal.

 

http://www.detectingwestaustraliangold.com/t6055-7000-warble

[Steve Herschbach]

Going fast and getting maximum depth/full coverage to depth are mutually exclusive. You can do one or the other. I do agree that if I wanted to do the go fast, cover ground thing I would rather use a GPX.

I think some of it is a personal thing. Some people like zooming around. By nature I am more the methodical type so the GPZ and going slow suits my personal hunting style better.