Monte
"In Memory of"
I can believe the date, the denomination and it's size, and the gold alloy content. I kind of question the buried depth.beachclad said:The target is an 1853 $1 gold coin. It's comprised of 90% gold and weighs 1.67 grams. It's buried 8-9" deep.
Yes, the AT Pro 'up-averaged', but I would recover it.beachclad said:The AT Pro reads the coin with a high tone in the high 80's and 90's, suggesting it's silver. To me, that's impressive at that depth. It means that the AT Pro had a good read on it as a conductive metal, and everyone would have dug that.
The Equinox on the other hand, read it with a low VDI that fluctuated between 8-13. That to me is a weak tone with a lot of variance. In a trashy area, nearly everyone except the most hardcore "dig everything" guys would have passed on it. That reading was iffy, like a pulltab, or small piece of aluminum.
Yes, the Equinox produced a more accurate VDI read-out, but I would still recover it.
I am not a Calabash fan, however, in this case, I agree that the Equinox was more accurate on a $1 gold coin.beachclad said:Calabash then says that the gold coin is a "low-to-mid" conductor, and thus the Equinox was more accurate in its assessment. I disagree. A gold coin like that is more of a "mid-to-high" conductor due to its purity, the equivalent of between 22K and 24K. Not the typical "low-to-mid" 14K ring of less than 60% purity. Remember that the Equinox ID'd it into the single digits.
You can disagree, but based on your example you are incorrect. Almost all of the Gold Coins are comprised of the same alloy content. Just like most Silver Coins are of very similar alloy content.
All the coins are made in a similar shape, round, and of consistent thickness and weight as designed for their denomination. The only real difference between the various Gold Coins is just like the differences between the Silver Coins ... size.
The very large Silver Dollar is going to read way up-scale and produce the highest VDI response simply due to the physical size. The other Silver Coins of comparable alloy content are then going to read-out lower and lower on the VDI scale, even though of comparable alloy conductivity, simply due to their size. Travelling down the VDI read-out scale we then encounter the silver 50¢ 'Half-Dollar', then the 25¢ 'Quarter', then the 10¢ 'Dime', followed by the smaller and thinner but similar conductivity alloy mix to the 5¢ 'Half-Dime' and then to the 3¢ Silver 'Trime.'
The $20 'Double-Eagle' Gold Piece will read farther up-scale, and as we travel down the VDI read-out we come to the $10 'Eagle', then the $5 'Half-Eagle', the $3 Gold Piece, then the $2.50 'Quarter-Eagle' and finally the dinky little $1 Gold Coin. Each with their own VDI read-out and all made of virtually the same alloy mix, but the differences in their read-out is simply based on their physical size that also affects their conductivity and not just their alloy mix. All flat, round-shaped objects.
I have found a lot of gold jewelry through the past several decades, but only 2 gold rings that were identified by a fellow from China who could read the inscriptions. They were rated as "pure gold" and were 22k to 24k when tested. Both were medium to larger-size women's rings, and both of them, even the squished one, had a read-out on my White's XLT as a Penny/Dime. Why so high? Simply due to their ring-shape because that shape enhanced their conductivity.beachclad said:To add more confusion to this discussion, forum member Numil recently dug a very pure 22K 7 gram ring with his Equinox that sounded off in the high tones, into the 30's. Like silver. Link: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=280445
I would say Calabash's reply is what I would have indicated as well knowing how small the $1 Gold Coin is.beachclad said:So who are we to believe here on which machine was better at ID'ing coins?
Monte