How do I turn Detecting into a career?

[Rudy]

Wow,

Brave Guy! I stay away from Bonds like the plague... Metals (physical) are the LARGEST part of my portfolio, followed by Oil, some VERY cheap Gas stocks and Junior Mining stocks. I have ONE bank stock that's done pretty good (Canadian Banks weathered EXTREMELY well during the recession) and that's about it. Dividends are OK, but I like more Risk and shorter investment periods. I used to be the 'Safe Investor', but my Portfolio grows MUCH quicker than it used to, but I do have to watch it very closely. I'll exit equities when they become stagnant and will go into Cash so I can take another position in a moment's notice when the Stock 'meets' my investment guidline. I even do a bit of Day and Swing trading, but that's only when I hear whispers regarding Drill results, assays and things like that... Trading the same stock multiple times a week or even multiple times a day is 'RIDICULOUSLY' Fun!

Cheers and Good Luck,

My bonds/funds are now all short or intermediate terms (or TIPS), between 3 and 5 year duration. No long bonds for me now. Too much interest risk. They dampen the volatility of the portfolio.

Agreed on Canadian banks totally, because of Canadian banking regulations, they don't have their balance sheets loaded with toxic derivatives. I have BMO and BNS and no US banks.

If you are young, you can afford the risk to your principal and be more aggressive. I don't have that luxury. I have about 20 stocks that I am long on, plus some equity mutual funds and bonds.

I don't like day trading ... too much excitement , nor do I do much in the realm of options.

 

[Cfmct]

We are not here to babysit (deleting posts and editing) those who feel the need to put others down... this is the last warning, act like adults or this thread vanishes.

Enough of the name calling and put downs... this is a friendly forum.

If you don't like something posted, then ignore it and move on...

 

[scoundrel]

=LSM;852536]

It's hillarious to me that you "looked it up" and kinda says a lot about you and your 'capacities'.

Hmm...When I don't understand something, I look it up.

I'm pretty sure you just complimented me.

It's called a "turn of phrase."". You can look that one up, too.

I know what a turn of phrase is, I just didn't recognize 'strain of fancy' as being one. I thought they were supposed to be artfully eloquent.

This doesn't require any level of 'expertise', beyond an ordinary capacity for logic and an IQ above 100, or so. It's like every high school kid who banks their future on being a rock star or an NBA point guard. Can it happen? Yes, but for every one you see, there are 100,000 who eventually had to 'get real'. I don't think what you're proposing has a success/fail ratio even that favorable.

One hundred thousand to one? Where did you get these numbers? I could show you a half dozen people who have done this, but you would still find a way to dismiss them.

Why don't you show me 2 people who have tried this and failed. I bet you can't. And by try, I mean someone who spent 12 months, on a full-time basis, diligently persuing treasure, primarily with a metal detector, but just couldn't succeed.

Anyway, I'm not going to engage in a stupid and pointless quid-pro-quo

Then why are you.

Actions speak louder than words. Go prove us wrong- the measurement of your success will be the number of dollars you put in the bank.

Oh, now I get it. Your one of those people who think success is all about the money. Or you work for a three lettered gov't agengy.

In order to know the measurement of my success, you would have to know what success means to me. I can tell you this, it's not about the number of dollars in my bank account.

Not "stories" or tall tales, theories about an infinitely brighter tomorrow where that big score is right around the corner.

I've never been a liar, or a story teller, and I'm not about to start now, for this silly little thread.

It's usually the liars that never believe anybody.

Believe it or not, I actually root for people like you, in kooky endeavors like this.

Yeah, I can tell.

I'd bet my net worth and everything I could borrow AGAINST you succeeding,

Sure you would.

I wish I could take you up on that, but I'm sure you have way more zeros than me behind that first number in your bank account balance, so I wouldn't be able to ante up.(hey teacher, did I just use a 'turn of phrase'?)

but I'm still rooting for you and hope that 100,000,000 to 1 shot lands in your lap- you swing your coil over some random spot and wind up with a trove of bootleggers gold, or whatever.

More rhetoric. Don't you have anything substantive to say?

Good luck. It's all ya' got.

Yet more rhetoric.

 

[LSM]

You seem to be <<< Deleted by Admin >>>

 

[scoundrel]

Here's some odds for you. <<< Deleted by Admin >>>

 

[LSM]

<<< Deleted by Admin >>>

 

[coinwizard]

I wish we had treasure coast! But never mind I will keep it up as a hobby I never want it tobecome a drag !

 

[gtoast99]

UMMMMM, NO!

Ok. I mean, seriously, that's up to you. It was just some friendly advice. It will be much easier for everyone to take you seriously when you propose an idea that most people find far-fetched if you use proper capitalization and rational argument to do so. Not using rational here as a put down, I simply mean, actually laying down some numbers that support your theory of how it would be possible to get from A to B.

AHAHAHAHA..... and HOW MANY 'Frozen Bodies' do these guys walk by on their way to the Summit?

179. But the point still stands that "I want to climb Mt. Everest/become a professional treasure hunter" is a goal, not a plan to reach that goal. I wouldn't encourage anyone to try either without a plan or they run a serious risk of physical/financial ruin, respectively.

You want to live 'nailed down' to some crappy suburb, go right ahead! And even then,.. Do you plan on 'Detecting MORE' once you retire?

I don't, I live on a horse farm in the country, like I said earlier Remember, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't follow your dream, in fact I encourage it. I just think that advice comes with the caveat that you make a plan for the success of your dream so it doesn't fail. And I have yet to see any sort of plan whatsoever that indicates how becoming a professional detectorist would pay the bills.

Do you plan on 'Detecting MORE' once you retire? The OP doesn't have to worry about that, he has that LUXURY (to some degree) already!

Well, the OP wouldn't have the luxury of detecting less if it's what he relies on to pay the bills. If he needs to put food on the table, it doesn't matter if it's freezing or a heat wave or a hurricane - he'd better be out there swinging until the quota is met or he doesn't eat. If the OP is financially stable enough that he doesn't rely on MD'ing to pay the bills and put food on the table, then no, he's not a professional metal detectorist. He's just retired and likes metal detecting a lot.

Well, I guess its a GOOD THING we have YOU to ask EVERY detectorist in AMERICA!

Your sarcasm aside, we do have this whole forum as a sample size, and no one has stepped up to say "I consistently make minimum wage MD'ing!" And there have been many such threads, and I've yet to see anyone who does. And I've belonged to two very active MD clubs, and none of them make close to minimum wage. I'd say that's a pretty decent sample size, but if you can find someone who does make more than minimum on a consistent from MD'ing, then good on them!

One decent ring and you'll make 'Minimum Wage' for a month,... A moderate ring, maybe Minimum wage for a Week! One slightly crappy ring and you'll make minimum wage for a day, maybe two. Now Add the Clad, add the Relics, etc and it adds up VERY, VERY quickly.

But just how quickly? Let's look at the numbers.

To make minimum wage for a month from one ring, it would need to weigh 39g of 14k. Yikes! Well, maybe you're super lucky and you find a 22k ring - it would still need to be 25g to pay you for the month. Even 950 platinum would need to be 22.5 g. I'll give you that you might find diamonds, but now you're not talking melt value, but resale value. So you can't just find a ring that *retails* for $1200, but one you can actually get that much money for. Here's some examples of the kinds of rings you'll need to make minimum for a month. Do you routinely expect to pull one of these *every* 160 hours? Think of how many hours you've spent detecting at the beach - how many of thse quality rings do you have to show for it? If it works out to 1/160 hrs, you *might* have a shot at making it work. And then good for you! You're on your way to starting to write a business plan

Show of hands - anyone find a 39g 14k ring or a 22g Pt ring or a 1Ct solitare EVERY ~160 hours? Personally, I'd call a find like that better than "decent"

How about a "moderate" ring that will make you minimum wage for a week. You're looking at needing to find 10g of 14k (certainly doable, here's an example) . But that's still a hefty ring. Think back to how much time you have been metal detecting at the beach, and now look at the number of big ol rings like this that you've found. Does the math work out to one of these every 40 hours? Wow, I sure wish mine did! If it does, you *MIGHT* be able to make this work.

Okay, let's try one more. a "slightly crappy" ring that will make you minimum wage for a day or two. Okay, if you call a 2g 14k ring "slightly crappy" then I'm envious HAHA. Personally, I think most forum members would be doing the happy dance something fierce over a 2g 14k ring. BUT there are a LOT of these rings posted to the forum. So surely, you should be able to find quite a few.

But to make minimum wage, you'll need to find a 2 gram 14k ring EVERY SINGLE DAY. Look back at your finds. Have you found a gold ring for every 8 hours in the field? Can you do this consistently, every 8 hours, for many years? Then you *MIGHT* be able to make minimum wage as a metal detectorist.

Can ANYONE on the forum say they find a gold ring every 8 hours?

Now, of course, none of this takes into account the associated expenses. Batteries, gas money, health insurance, etc. and it adds up VERY, VERY quickly. So to actually make "minimum wage", you'll need to do quite a bit better than the figures I've given here. But honestly look back at your finds... do you think you find this many quality finds in the same time intervals provided? If you're not pulling a gold ring every 8 hours, what makes you think you can pull more gold rings per hour by swinging more hours?

Again, I'm not saying it *can't* be done, just that no one has yet shown a plan that shows *how* it *can* be done successfully. Everyone has just said they feel it could work, but not provided any factual evidence to support this claim.

 

[gtoast99]

Why don't you show me 2 people who have tried this and failed. I bet you can't. And by try, I mean someone who spent 12 months, on a full-time basis, diligently persuing treasure, primarily with a metal detector, but just couldn't succeed.

I can show you a forum full of people who don't make minimum wage per hour detecting. And if they're not making minimum wage in one hour, what make you think they can make minimum wage over 8 hours? or over a month?

To break it down. Let's say I go metal detecting once a week for one hour a day for 8 weeks, and I make an average of $2.00 per hour. If I went metal detecting for 8 hours on one day and made the same finds per hour, I would have made.... $2.00 per hour. If I go metal detecting for a year working full time with the same frequency of finds, I will have made.... $2.00 per hour.

So unless you can look back on your finds and the length of time that you were swinging to make those finds and the math works out to more than minimum wage, there's no evidence that simply swinging more will improve your hourly rate, which is what you need to know it can be a successful enterprise.

If it *does* work out to more than minimum wage, then you still need to look at those finds to determine if you think you can *routinely* find those same quality of finds the the same time interval. Take your $4000 cache for example. Can you routinely expect to find a $4000 cache every 3-4 months? If not, it's not sustainable and you're not likely to make minimum wage from MD'ing.

Oh, now I get it. Your one of those people who think success is all about the money. Or you work for a three lettered gov't agengy.

In order to know the measurement of my success, you would have to know what success means to me. I can tell you this, it's not about the number of dollars in my bank account.

Well, yes and no.... You don't need to be able to be a millionaire from MD'ing before you're "successful". Nor even make 20k/yr. But you DO need to put food on the table. And so far, the number don't even look too good for that...

 

[ScottS]

They say it takes 10,000 hours to master your trade.

I don't know a lot about MD'ing yet. But I am self employed and do believe if you started your "apprenticeship" with the end goal of a livable income you have as good a shot at success as does the average start up; once you master your trade. That also includes spending time figuring out how to make a living doing it. Not just spending 10,000 hours swinging in tot lots and calling that training.

It's a matter of treating it like a business. Just off the top of my head... I envision being the "go to guy" for a bunch of high end beach resorts recovering lost valuables for wealthy vacationers. And if your a good salesman, you would have the resorts on a service contract with a monthly stipend with a guaranteed response time.

Maybe in between recoveries you are renting detectors or giving lessons to tourists... or whatever. When there is a will, there is a way.

There are people out there making a living walking dogs, playing video games, or riding bicycles. Why not MD'ing?

 

[ohiochris]

What do you find hard to believe? Aquaman puts his time in and is a very good hunter... back in the 80's the first waterhunters could come home with 50 or more gold in a weekend... I hunted a spot this past march and pulled 15 gold after a half a dozen hunts my buddy who hunted with me pulled 9 gold from a 50 foot in diameter spot... spots like this are out there... there are guys out there who can pull over a 100 gold rings in a season...

Thats why I didnt want to "say" there was anything wrong with it But the numbers and pictures are very impressive , and while I am happy for him it still reminds me of the fish stories. I am a little more cautious about "fish stories" these days , not trying to claim his finds arent real.

 

[Hoze513]

 

[scoundrel]

=gtoast99;853030]I can show you a forum full of people who don't make minimum wage per hour detecting. And if they're not making minimum wage in one hour, what make you think they can make minimum wage over 8 hours? or over a month?

To break it down. Let's say I go metal detecting once a week for one hour a day for 8 weeks, and I make an average of $2.00 per hour. If I went metal detecting for 8 hours on one day and made the same finds per hour, I would have made.... $2.00 per hour. If I go metal detecting for a year working full time with the same frequency of finds, I will have made.... $2.00 per hour.

Can't you have just one intellectually honest argument. I can't believe your making me have to explain this.

The great majotity of the people on this forum probably make the same rounds over and over, going back to the places that have produced in the past. Tot-lots, parks, beaches, etc. What percentage of the people on this forum routinely travel out of state, or even 100-200 miles away for that matter to metal detect in different locations. Their method of hunting is not the method that I would apply, and their method does not set the standard for what constitutes metal detecting.

The examples you give to back up your opinion do not hold water.

And while I'm on this topic, why is it that Dustys scenerio, with many unknown factors, is bible, yet you find a way to dismiss mine. With all due respect to Dusty( I have never met the gentlemen, this is not personal),
how do you know that he is not 65 yeard old, and when he's prospecting, he's only putting in 4-6 hours a day? And that maybe somebody 20-30 years his junior, could go out there under the same circumstances,work twice as many hours per day, and process 3 or 4 times the volume of material that Dusty does? And stay out an extra month because the cold doesn't bother him as much.

So unless you can look back on your finds and the length of time that you were swinging to make those finds and the math works out to more than minimum wage, there's no evidence that simply swinging more will improve your hourly rate,

You know that's not true. The law of averages will catch up to you. The more total hours you put into it, the more 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000 things you will find, which will bring up your average significantly.

And I'm not talking about randomly walking any beach with a blinfold on, and metal detecting. I did not randomly stumble across a $4,000 cashe. I did read a story, did research, went and looked for it, and got lucky.


Steve Arnold found a $1,000,000 meteorite with his metal detector, 4 years before 'Meteorite Men'. What do you think that did for his average?

If it *does* work out to more than minimum wage, then you still need to look at those finds to determine if you think you can *routinely* find those same quality of finds the the same time interval. Take your $4000 cache for example. Can you routinely expect to find a $4000 cache every 3-4 months? If not, it's not sustainable and you're not likely to make minimum wage from MD'ing.

No, but I do expect at the end of 12 months, I will have made enough substancially sizeable finds to bring up my average to a sustainable level.

And speaking of minimum wage, and how nobody on this forum can pull it off,
what about Gary Drayton? Do you think he averages better than minimum wage?

Well, yes and no.... You don't need to be able to be a millionaire from MD'ing before you're "successful". Nor even make 20k/yr. But you DO need to put food on the table. And so far, the number don't even look too good for that..

Hey! Maybe we have somethin in common after all. There is hope.

 

[gtoast99]

Can't you have just one intellectually honest argument. I can't believe your making me have to explain this.

C'mon now, FRIENDLY forum.

The great majotity of the people on this forum probably make the same rounds over and over, going back to the places that have produced in the past. Tot-lots, parks, beaches, etc. What percentage of the people on this forum routinely travel out of state, or even 100-200 miles away for that matter to metal detect in different locations.

So now you're going to go driving 100-200 miles to keep your spots fresh? Don't forget to factor in gas prices into your expected expenses for your business plan! You do have a business plan, right?

You know that's not true. The law of averages will catch up to you. The more total hours you put into it, the more 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000 things you will find, which will bring up your average significantly.

I don't think you understand the concept of averages... If a find is 1 in 1000, your're going to find one (on average) one out of a thousand times. So if you go detecting one day a year for a thousand years, your average will be one find of that type. If you go out every day for a thousand days, you will find one find of that type. The average is still the same, and detecting more frequently doesn't change how often such a find will come up, and it doesn't change your hourly rate. And if it's not possible to find minimum wage if you're detecting part time for a year, you're not going to make minimum wage detecting full time for a year.

Let me put it another way. Have you been out detecting, over the course of your career, for 800 hours? Do you have 200g of 14k in that time frame (1g of 14K every 4 hours)? If not, you're not making minimum wage. And if you can't make minimum wage over 800 hourse spread out over a decade, you're probably not going to make minimum wage over 800 hours of consecutive hunting. That's the definition of average rate.

That is, unless your entire plan relies on finding the one in a million find that will make you super ultra rich. Which, as I said before, will likely not involve metal detecting at all, and will require a huge bankroll to support you while you search for years (if you find it at all). Without that, you may as well be buying lotto tickets.

And I'm not talking about randomly walking any beach with a blinfold on, and metal detecting. I did not randomly stumble across a $4,000 cashe. I did read a story, did research, went and looked for it, and got lucky.

So your entire plan is based on "getting lucky". You haven't shown that its possible on a continuing basis nor given any indication that you have any plan as to how you're going to find something valued at $4000 frequently enough to make a living (in the most literal sense of "having food to live").

No, but I do expect at the end of 12 months, I will have made enough substancially sizeable finds to bring up my average to a sustainable level.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Anything besides "hope"?

And speaking of minimum wage, and how nobody on this forum can pull it off,
what about Gary Drayton? Do you think he averages better than minimum wage?

Don't know him. Is he selling me a book on how to get rich metal detecting?

Hey! Maybe we have somethin in common after all. There is hope.

You left off the part that in order to be "successful" you DO need to find enough to buy food to live off of. That's the most basic definition of supporting yourself. And you still have yet to give any indication as to how you plan to find enough money to do even that. Except that you happened to "get lucky" and find one big cache, and have no indication of how often such caches will be found nor how to afford living until (if??) you happen to "get lucky" again.

So, one last time before I sign off, I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just saying that I would NEVER encourage anyone to risk their financial future on the hope of "getting lucky" with no plan whatsoever and no evidence that it can even be successful. Dan's "lottery" example fits you to a T. But who knows, your numbers may just come up one of these days (hopefully before you've lost everything).

Okay, you can take your cheap shots now, I'm sure they'll get deleted but at least you'll feel good about yourself

 

[sonofamahalla]

Oddly,

I JUST found my first meteorite! Small sucker but it was laying about 4" above an old chunk of farm equipment in a School Yard so I actually found it 'by Accident! I Couldn't freakin' believe IT! Also, found a bullet from a some kind of 'Black Powder Gun' (Man, do those things ever look weird) and recently a 'COPPER NUGGET' on the side of a HUGE hill from a park that was built in 1995... (Must have been 'FILL' from somewhere else..).

I asked one of the people that worked at on of the Lapidary shops here in town and they said that ALL the local meteorites that they had for sale were actually found by the owners! How cool is that? Damn things are 'EXPENSIVE' too!

Meteorites are definitely on my 'To Do' list... We get quite a few of them up here actually...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_2aX-784sw

 

[gtoast99]

Congrats!!!

 

[Hoze513]

Let the man enjoy his hobby and live his life how he wants to.

 

[gtoast99]

oops, forgot I'm done responding in this thread LOL

 

[LSM]

You know that's not true. The law of averages will catch up to you. The more total hours you put into it, the more 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000 things you will find, which will bring up your average significantly.

**edit. Nevermind. I see gtoast already addressed that.

You don't understand how probability works. Period. Go take a Stats class, or something. It isn't a 'matter of opinion'.

This is what separates winning from losing poker players, this is what keeps people playing lotto with the sincere belief that one day, they'll win the big one.

 

[LSM]

oops, forgot I'm done responding in this thread LOL

LOL. Yeah, me too.