Gold Bug Pro

[Reno Chris]

Hey I visited with the Fisher Rep today at the Salem GPAA show and got some more info on the new GB Pro.

They are continuing to tweak the new fisher GB Pro design. So the final design is not set at this point in time. Release date is still set for April, and as today is 3/27, and release is set for April, it is possible that release may be delayed (that last part is my assessment, not what the rep said)

Some folks on another forum pointed out that Cabelas has the GB Pro for sale right now. According to the rep it is a not quite finished version, based on what the GB Pro was at the time the Cabelas units were made. Everything is fully functional, but more improvements have been made since and the final release will be better.

Sensitivity has been improved since the prototype I saw in Phoenix, and I think to say if the GBII or GB Pro is more sensitive would now require side by side testing in the field. They are at least quite close.

Fisher kinds of intends the pro to mostly replace the GBII over time. They are not planning on eliminating the GB II any time soon, but the GB Pro is much cheaper to make and therefore more profitable than the older GB II which has a lot more analog systems. The GB Pro has a number of interesting features that will help prospectors find gold.

The target sound on the GB Pro is nothing like the crisp zip-zip on any VLF I am familiar with. This may be adjusted before final design approval.

As Steve guessed, the tracking is a continuous monitor and the ground grab takes a reading at that moment and sets the ground balance to that point. The decision not to have a tracking mode was a conscious one by the designer to force the user always into fixed mode.

Finally, while I was at the show I ended up having some interesting discussions with both the Fisher Rep and Carl Mooreland, who is the Engineering Division manager for Whites and does detector design. (Salem, Oregon, is not far from Sweethome where Whites is located). Both separately claimed there companies are looking to do some significant new projects in the way of gold detectors in the future. Of course they revealed no specifics and no dates, but hopefully some of these will pan out to become machines we will all be using in the future. I do think the demand for prospecting detectors, the demand crunch at Minelab and price of gold have attracted the attention of the American Metal detector makers and hopefully something will come of it. Yes ML has a considerable lead and is essentially "already there" when it comes to building a quality PI prospecting detector (Whites does have the TDI). Still Competition is good for the buyer, but only time will tell.

[Jim Hemmingway]

Thanks for the update Chris. Have you heard anything with respect to the Teknetics G2? Reading on another forum I came across a statement by M. Scott...

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,308890.0.html

It seems odd to me First Texas would produce two similar units, but there must be a good reason for it...

Jim.

[Reno Chris]

Jim - Mike Scott is the First Texas representative I spoke with. I did not ask about the G2, but I will see Mike in a couple weeks at the GPAA Las Vegas show, and I'll ask about why the two similar units then.

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Guys,

Marketing. Why do we need both Chevy and GM when both are same company? I sold Johnson and Evinrude outboards for years that were same motors, different paint and decals. Nothing back then like hearing a Johnson owner brag about how much better his outboard was than an Evinrude!

It does look like the Gold Bug Pro will be the better buy as long as you get it at the introductory price. There appears to be no such deal being offered on the G2.

[Jim Hemmingway]

Perhaps you’re right Steve, I certainly have no explanation for Fisher’s marketing strategy in this instance. We’ve witnessed an unprecedented production of their VLF units flooding the marketplace. Fisher has retaken a fair share of the market and financial fortunes have been reversed with respect to the entity “Fisher Research Labs”. There is little or no arguing with their recent success, although long-term strategy seeks continual product improvement.

With their new line-up of VLF units pretty much in place for the present, perhaps its time for Fisher to address the ground balancing PI market. Heck, they can produce two of those too, one for prospecting, and a less sensitive, waterproofed unit for the surf. But, is there a worthwhile marketplace for this product?

Navigating various forums indicate that ground balance PI units have markedly gained in popularity in recent times. More hobbyists than ever are sporting TDI, Infinium and Minelab units. The improvements to sensitivity and limited but useful discrimination account for increased sales. A number of “expert” hobbyists communicating the utility of these units on the various internet metal detecting forums have further promoted increased consumer interest and the sales of ground balancing PI units.

To my view, PI units are evolving from their past restricted “niche” status as better educated users experiment with wider applications. This is exemplified by civil war relic hunting pursuits over highly mineralized ground in Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas and other classic CW areas where VLF unit depth performance struggles and target ID has little or no value. I suspect the recent increase in the numbers of hobbyists using these units is a sound indicator for the future, the recent global pressure for more such units notwithstanding.

It seems to me the “babyboomer” hobbyists generate a very substantial marketplace force contributing to the financial success enjoyed by metal detector manufacturers in recent years. We are encouraged by improvements to ground balance PI features, and we do have the dollars to spend. We don’t have endless years to wait for an ideal unit, so we choose from the available products.

A creative, practical ground balance PI design from Fisher may very well enjoy similar success in the PI marketplace that has been experienced recently in the VLF marketplace. No need to recreate the wheel, place the emphasis on housing the best combination of technologies available under one roof with a view to practical use in the field. Any reduction in weight would certainly be an attractive selling point to aging consumers. Yes, hip/chest mounting sounds attractive, but invariably my units get stressed where the coil wire leads into the box, resulting in electrical shorts and false signals. So, the unit gets remounted under the stem. Otherwise I have to contemplate buying a theoretical endless stream of expensive replacement coils over the years. No thanks, they need to reduce the weight.

I daresay that if the Fisher crowd has time in their schedule for producing pretty much duplicate VLF prospecting units, then scheduling time and resources to undertake PI ground balancing unit design and production should lie within their capability. The question I’d like to see put to M. Scott is whether they intend to enter the ground balancing PI market anytime soon?

Jim.

[Reno Chris]

We've all lamented that for years the American detector makers have just blown off the PI market. I think that will prove in the long run to their serious detriment. I totally agree with you Jim that the PI will prove to have serious applications in cache hunting and other areas beyond just prospecting.

While I was in Oregon I spoke not only with Mike Scott of First Texas, but also with Carl Mooreland of Whites (Carl is their lead design Engineer). Both spoke hopefully of future products to compete with Minelab in the PI prospecting arena. Nothing on the immediate horizon, but stuff out in the future. I wish them well and hope they succeed, but its like competing in a one mile run and giving your opponent a 200 yard head start or giving your golf buddy a 20 stroke bonus. You have a deep hole to dig out of. While the American makers were telling themselves its an insignificant market and unimportant technology, ML was patenting all the technology they could lay their hands on.

This recent "rush" has provided significant profits to Codan. The prospecting detector profits have been huge enough to have a very significant effect on Codan's corporate bottom line (in spite of the fact that they are a fairly well diversified company). First Texas and others got to gain a few crumbs of the excess when ML could not meet the demand even after a huge step up in production.

Although there is place for VLFs and areas where a VLF would be preferred over a PI for prospecting, there are a huge number of places where the PI is superior. Its my opinion that most VLF prospecting machines are sold not because that's whats best in the places a prospector intends to search, but simply because they are cheaper.

Chris

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Chris,

I agree with all said except for the fact that here VLF units far outsell PI units as VVLF units far outperform PI units. Price is not the issue. The most accessible areas near Anchorage feature low mineralization and small gold. A PI unit offers no benefits and in fact misses much of the gold a hot VLF will find. The Fisher Gold Bug 2 and White's GMT reign supreme here. And Ganes Creek long ago proved that low mineralization combined with tons (literally) of iron and steel junk will bring a PI operator to tears. Single operators with MXTs have found more gold at Ganes Creek than all PI operators combined.

But that said it is obvious from what I see on the internet that these are rare circumstances, and that in most areas a good PI unit is the only way to go. If I had to own only one prospecting detector, it would be whatever top Minelab unit is available. The US manufacturers really missed the boat, something which they are now painfully aware of. Luckily, technology is not a forced march, and there is nothing that says anyone can not come out with a unit as good as or better than a Minelab if the right "Eureka moment" happens in an engineers brain. However, I believe Minelab has taken PI units to the limit for sheer depth, so little is likely to happen going forward regarding depth of detection. All I hope for is better iron discrimination to solve the Ganes Creek dilemma.

My daughter and I thoroughly enjoyed having dinner with you and your wife. I look forward to meeting again in the future.

[Reno Chris]

Hi Steve:
I think we mostly agree – there is no question that locally in some places VLFs are better than PI detectors. Crow Creek and Gaines are good examples. Moore Creek would be one where PI units shine and VLFs fail. This last February I was taken to a place in Arizona that had yielded many pounds of gold to VLFs and dry washers, but had (to the best of the owner’s knowledge) never been touched with PI detectors. Three of us hunted all around the comparatively small productive area of around 5 acres with our Minelabs, but found no gold. The deal was that it was a pocket from a quartz vein and all the gold was leafy, wiry and mossy, not the best for a PI, the ground was mostly very shallow and not overly mineralized (which is unusual for Arizona). For that location, a VLF was the right choice – though for the most part, Arizona goldfields are best handled with PI detectors.

My point about the cost is that there are many, many new guys who live around areas where PI detectors are best, but really can’t afford even the cost of a TDI. I see regularly see guys ask on the forums “what’s the best detector I can get for under $X dollars?” (and X is usually from $300 to $800 dollars.) I often recommend that they wait and save their money, but they are making their choice based on the lower cost of a VLF, not what works best in the general part of the country in which they live. My opinion that more VLF prospecting detectors are sold this way than to folks who knowingly choose a VLF because that’s what’s best in the places they want to search is a raw guess, and certainly not some real survey. Hopefully things will work out for the American dealers as competition is usually a good thing for consumers.

Nanette and I also enjoyed dinner very much and hope your house offer works out, so we can visit on a regular basis. If you need a hand moving furniture and stuff this summer, give me a call.

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Chris,

Yeah, for lots of people it is simply what they can afford. To bad the used Minelab market got so out of whack but the rush seems to be subsiding so maybe older units will once again become available for reasonable prices.

I wish Garrett would strip the Infinium out of the waterproof case and sell the machine with a lighter coil. Just going to a regular case would probably knock a couple hundred dollars off the price plus make for a lot lighter unit. I think I'll do one up myself just to see what could be done in that regard. Be an easy project.

[chickenminer]

Steve,
When do you expect to have the GB Pro in stock? How long is your Introductory pricing going to last?
I might pick up one of these just to see if it is easier for me to use.
You guys are sure correct, as a very green novice who doesn't swing a detector enough to really get comfortable, the GB II is a real bugger for me to use.