10-21-2014, 11:45 PM
Guys, anyone who's been on here for longer than 5 minutes (lol) knows I'm infatuated with the question of what's the bigger problem, masking or depth. Obviously, both present a challenge to us, however, based on my own digging experiences, and the types of places I hunt, IMO, depth is the critical factor. Further, maybe you guys care to take a crack at this one...
If masking is a bigger problem over depth, why is it that out of thousands upon thousands of holes I've dug, the percentage of secondary targets in the hole below the initial target is minuscule? Meaning...
The times that I've dug a quarter for example, and then dug another coin below that which was being masked by the quarter is almost non-existent. Same goes for junk. It's a terribly rare occasion when I dig a pull tab or other piece of trash, only to find a 'good' target in the hole with it. Now...
If masking was the bigger problem, why don't I find MANY more holes with multiple targets in them?
Keep in mind, I'm NOT suggesting that masking doesn't exist, or isn't a problem, it IS, I'm simply trying to convey that in my experience, I think the bigger problem is depth, ie; the older coinage/relics being out of current detector capability range.
Finally, if any of you had a choice, would you rather have less surface trash to contend with (which would reduce masking), or, have 12" to 18" of top soil removed from your hunting spots? As for me...
I'd definitively opt for the removal of top soil
Joe
If masking is a bigger problem over depth, why is it that out of thousands upon thousands of holes I've dug, the percentage of secondary targets in the hole below the initial target is minuscule? Meaning...
The times that I've dug a quarter for example, and then dug another coin below that which was being masked by the quarter is almost non-existent. Same goes for junk. It's a terribly rare occasion when I dig a pull tab or other piece of trash, only to find a 'good' target in the hole with it. Now...
If masking was the bigger problem, why don't I find MANY more holes with multiple targets in them?
Keep in mind, I'm NOT suggesting that masking doesn't exist, or isn't a problem, it IS, I'm simply trying to convey that in my experience, I think the bigger problem is depth, ie; the older coinage/relics being out of current detector capability range.
Finally, if any of you had a choice, would you rather have less surface trash to contend with (which would reduce masking), or, have 12" to 18" of top soil removed from your hunting spots? As for me...
I'd definitively opt for the removal of top soil
Joe