Realistic depth of ID with TID machines?

I'm getting disillusioned with TID machines for relic hunting, so I thought I would ask. What is the realistic Target Identification depth (readout, not just sound) you can expect to get with something like an Explorer or even an Etrac (since they seem to be the preferred VLF depth monsters)? Now, I know conditions play a huge part in this, so I'll set some to work with. We know most good finds are not isolated by themselves, just waiting to be found. So, say the conditions are good ground, some amount of iron within a couple inches of the target but not touching or over it, target canted a little but not on edge, and moist ground. With those conditions how deep could I expect something like the Explorer to give me a good ID, via the display, that signifys something worth digging is mixed in?

[ALL]

As with ALL TID machines, the deeper the target, the less "locked on" the TID will be.   But the Explorer seems to retain the TID better than other machines, in my opinion, once you learn the language.   For a dime, for example, you can get a real accurate TID at up to 7".  Then at 8 or 9", the accuracy drops a bit to where you have to make a little more judgement calls.   But it's still dead on for iron verses conductive, or high verses low, etc.... at thos 8 or 9" depths.   Other machines seem to hit a brick wall beyond 6" or so, where it seems everything starts to sound the same, etc... in the TID department.

Agreed

  The best answer, and what you need to hear is forget about looking at the screen.  I don't remember too many detectors that show where button, spigot, belt plate, jews harp, trade axe, cannonball, shoe buckle etc. etc. etc. come in on the screen.  Even hunting coins the ID is a fairly pathetic way to decide whether to dig or not.  If you get a good signal, but the target ID doesn't agree are you going to just walk away?  ...or dig the hole!  So why let a screen make the choice anytime?  When I was new to detecting I looked at the meter for about my first year but slowly began to see it was more a limitation to finds than an advantage.  I've never known anyone who I thought was a great relic hunter, or digger in general, to look at the screen.  I guess it would be about 9 years I've had my explorer and couldn't tell you any target a digital number represents, or where something falls on the smartscreen.  It's just the detector's best guess and I'd rather be the one making the call.

   PS...  I can guarantee the explorer when hunting in iron will not show all good targets on the screen because of masking.  Many times I have played around before digging just to prove the point, so I know it to be fact. If that's not the case for anyone using an explorer it means one thing, they're only digging th easy ones.

I dont find many coins where I "relic" hunt anyway so I dig everything thats not iron.  And if I am in a good area I even dig that!  I guess what I am saying is that relic hunting IS about digging iron, and anything else.  Most relics that I dig dont fall into the zones of the disc on the machine.  I've been digging an Indian War era camp lately and found tha .50-70 bullets read different at different depths, primers read different depending on the depth AND the angel.  I agree that the explorer is pretty good at ID'ing iron, if you dont want to dig iron than just ignore the low grunts and dig everything else!  Remember, If you start finding alot of iron in the middle of a field it is probably hiding something good. 

  The best answer, and what you need to hear is forget about looking at the screen.  I don't remember too many detectors that show where button, spigot, belt plate, jews harp, trade axe, cannonball, shoe buckle etc. etc. etc. come in on the screen.  Even hunting coins the ID is a fairly pathetic way to decide whether to dig or not.  If you get a good signal, but the target ID doesn't agree are you going to just walk away?  ...or dig the hole!  So why let a screen make the choice anytime?  When I was new to detecting I looked at the meter for about my first year but slowly began to see it was more a limitation to finds than an advantage.  I've never known anyone who I thought was a great relic hunter, or digger in general, to look at the screen.  I guess it would be about 9 years I've had my explorer and couldn't tell you any target a digital number represents, or where something falls on the smartscreen.  It's just the detector's best guess and I'd rather be the one making the call.

   PS...  I can guarantee the explorer when hunting in iron will not show all good targets on the screen because of masking.  Many times I have played around before digging just to prove the point, so I know it to be fact. If that's not the case for anyone using an explorer it means one thing, they're only digging th easy ones.

Agree with Iron patch 100%, depend on the sound, not the screen. (however, if you do happen to get a 12 45 small signal at depth on a nice colonial spot, pretty good odds it's time to sit down and savour the moment! ) 

 

Coming from the UK I can't quite understand the problem you US guys have with the issue of depths and screens I look at the finds posted, and see a lot of fantastic finds and a lot of them made from Iron if I were hunting there it would be simple I would dig every signal that I heard discrimination, or what a metre says wouldn't come into it, everything that made a squawk in the headphones, would be out...it's as simple as that, don't rely on meters and what the manufacturers say about depth and so on...dig everything, that's the only way to be sure. We can't do that here and Iron has to be sifted out, our History is to wide and if we dug all signals we would never find anything.

Coming from the UK I can't quite understand the problem you US guys have with the issue of depths and screens I look at the finds posted, and see a lot of fantastic finds and a lot of them made from Iron if I were hunting there it would be simple I would dig every signal that I heard discrimination, or what a metre says wouldn't come into it, everything that made a squawk in the headphones, would be out...it's as simple as that, don't rely on meters and what the manufacturers say about depth and so on...dig everything, that's the only way to be sure. We can't do that here and Iron has to be sifted out, our History is to wide and if we dug all signals we would never find anything.

   You're definitetly not giving enough credit to all the crap we have in the ground as well!  If I were to dig it all I'd never leave a site.

Coming from the UK I can't quite understand the problem you US guys have with the issue of depths and screens I look at the finds posted, and see a lot of fantastic finds and a lot of them made from Iron if I were hunting there it would be simple I would dig every signal that I heard discrimination, or what a metre says wouldn't come into it, everything that made a squawk in the headphones, would be out...it's as simple as that, don't rely on meters and what the manufacturers say about depth and so on...dig everything, that's the only way to be sure. We can't do that here and Iron has to be sifted out, our History is to wide and if we dug all signals we would never find anything.

   You're definitetly not giving enough credit to all the crap we have in the ground as well!  If I were to dig it all I'd never leave a site.

Perhaps....... but there is a huge difference between 2000 + years of Iron loses and 400

SS

Coming from the UK I can't quite understand the problem you US guys have with the issue of depths and screens I look at the finds posted, and see a lot of fantastic finds and a lot of them made from Iron if I were hunting there it would be simple I would dig every signal that I heard discrimination, or what a metre says wouldn't come into it, everything that made a squawk in the headphones, would be out...it's as simple as that, don't rely on meters and what the manufacturers say about depth and so on...dig everything, that's the only way to be sure. We can't do that here and Iron has to be sifted out, our History is to wide and if we dug all signals we would never find anything.

   You're definitetly not giving enough credit to all the crap we have in the ground as well!  If I were to dig it all I'd never leave a site.

Perhaps....... but there is a huge difference between 2000 + years of Iron loses and 400

SS

   No there's not if you have enough iron to never leave one site.     

   Plus... it's still basically in spots there is it not?  Where I always hunt is in the concentration so I'm dealing with quite a bit of it every hunt.  You'd have to hit solid iron for every square foot to really make a valid point, and even 2000 years of history isn't going to put iron everywhere. So esscentially I might be dealing with iron just as much, or even more than you!  I rarely have to walk much distance when I'm on a site, where I see someone like Crusader is more interested in speed and covering ground. If there was so much iron he'd be forced to slow down.   Another point is the worst sites tend to me the more modern ones so I'd gladly be hunting 200,300,400 year old places than a 1900s farm site.  I personally think you guys have it pretty easy in every way. Sure you'll dig a lot of crap, but as you say 2000 years of history at least gives you lots of places to hunt and can turn up a keeper just about anywhere.  Here as soon as we leave the water fat chance of anything more than maybe 150 years old.  Even on the water the best we do is 250 so it's definitely different... but I'm not sure it's as different as you think.  Our concentrations are just smaller but's that's where we generally stay.

Bama my take on it is detectors today are deeper than ever but to me it seems the other gadgits are mostly hype. But lots of people have fun with them and sometimes they even work. So there ya go.

digluv

Coming from the UK I can't quite understand the problem you US guys have with the issue of depths and screens I look at the finds posted, and see a lot of fantastic finds and a lot of them made from Iron if I were hunting there it would be simple I would dig every signal that I heard discrimination, or what a metre says wouldn't come into it, everything that made a squawk in the headphones, would be out...it's as simple as that, don't rely on meters and what the manufacturers say about depth and so on...dig everything, that's the only way to be sure. We can't do that here and Iron has to be sifted out, our History is to wide and if we dug all signals we would never find anything.

   You're definitetly not giving enough credit to all the crap we have in the ground as well!  If I were to dig it all I'd never leave a site.

Perhaps....... but there is a huge difference between 2000 + years of Iron loses and 400

SS

   No there's not if you have enough iron to never leave one site.      

   Plus... it's still basically in spots there is it not?  Where I always hunt is in the concentration so I'm dealing with quite a bit of it every hunt.  You'd have to hit solid iron for every square foot to really make a valid point, and even 2000 years of history isn't going to put iron everywhere. So esscentially I might be dealing with iron just as much, or even more than you!  I rarely have to walk much distance when I'm on a site, where I see someone like Crusader is more interested in speed and covering ground. If there was so much iron he'd be forced to slow down.   Another point is the worst sites tend to me the more modern ones so I'd gladly be hunting 200,300,400 year old places than a 1900s farm site.  I personally think you guys have it pretty easy in every way. Sure you'll dig a lot of crap, but as you say 2000 years of history at least gives you lots of places to hunt and can turn up a keeper just about anywhere.  Here as soon as we leave the water fat chance of anything more than maybe 150 years old.  Even on the water the best we do is 250 so it's definitely different... but I'm not sure it's as different as you think.  Our concentrations are just smaller but's that's where we generally stay.

No it's not just in spots....the best Saxon spots have heavily concentrated Iron contaminants to them, couple this with modern farming(going back to 1600c) that's when things get interesting for us that's why we have to filter it out, because we are just not interested in that Time frame, but you guys obviously are, so you have to dig it out. As for Crusader I don't think he is a fast hunter, I have watched him, and he likes to clear the Iron..or get shaun to do it were as I don't, I ignore it as much as possible, and only get fooled by the odd deep bit, but it's also recomended to dig deep Iron. as for having it easy, depends what you meen by easy.... easy to go back three or four hundred years....yes, easy to find the Time period we want, no it certainly isn't it takes time and a lot of effort

There really does come a point that the TID shouldnt be used.  Id prefer a good depth meter any day.  Depth, size of target, soil, salt, EMI... it all affects TID, especially at depth.   I do use the smartscreen.... but to a point since i can generally tell a target at at least 8 or 9 inches.  Even at that depth the TID WONT wont show the target of some metals in the same local that it doest at say 5".  So why have a TID machine..... you dont need one.  In fact too many people use the TID as a reason NOT to dig.... bad decission on those deep targets.

Dew