I've been involved with metal detecting on and off since 1975.
Without exception, there has always been an underlying current of "unhappiness" amongst detectorist's for a multitude of reasons.
We have tried to help detectorist's nationwide to benefit from the skills and experience we have accomplished to date.
It was not until October 2010 that I decided to take my metal detecting experience to another level. That story is featured on our home page.
The term "Successful Detecting" can be replaced with "How do I Achieve 100% Happiness in the Hobby of Metal Detecting?".
Below are examples where members of the detecting fraternity are not happy with their efforts. These examples are not "The Full Story".
It is with hope that some of our experience can be absorbed by fellow detectorist's.
Historically there has been a void between archaeology and the hobby.
Thankfully that void has been replaced with trust and respect.
Added to that, metal detector technology has advanced massively since my first BFO machine back in the 70's.
So, my challenge was how to attain that "higher level" of detecting and also enjoy the current ambient relationship the hobby has with archaeologists.
The first step was quite easy; upgrade my 17 year old machine with one that could easily cope with ancient sites efficiently and effectively.
The second step was a little trickier, to create a formula that would help achieve the goal of that crucial "next step up".
The formula in itself is quite simple; research, acquire permission, survey, results.
The content of the formula however is not that simple! Research is extremely labour intensive, acquiring a permission isn't straightforward,
the survey technique requires discipline and the results can be disappointing. Fortunately the latter is a rare occurance.
During the past 5 years I've noticed that the majority of detectorist's question all four parts of the above equation but one question that is perhaps greater than all of the above is; "what is the deepest detection depth that today's machines can achieve?". The "depth" question has no place in the equation as most of our recoveries have been retrieved from the first four inches of the field surface. Admittedly, those finds are the small items that most detectorist's dream of finding such as the hammered coins of the Roman or Medieval period.
What is strange is that there are claims of recovering these small hammered coins at a depth of 8 inches.... or more! This is the normal plough depth for most seeding operations so that would surely mean that no more small hammered coins will ever be recovered on that ploughland? Of course some coins that are edge on may be missed but that would be a minority so a return visit the following year could result in a very low recovery count in those "edge-on" coins?
From all the comments I've seen on social media it's apparent that the common excuse is to put the blame on everything rather than the simple fact that the history does not exist under their coils! What is accepted however, worldwide, is that "you've got to walk over it". This is quite perplexing as if you're not finding it, it isn't there!
Using the above formula helps negate the unrealistic need to "fondly imagine" that a hammered coin may exist in the field that you are about to survey. After all, who would want to drive three hours to a new site and then spend 8 hours searching with no recoveries and then drive the three hours back home?
Whilst trying to enhance the ambient relationship with the archaeological world we try to promote the professionalism that the relationship and hobby deserves. With this in mind, our reports hopefully reflect this, as does our survey technique and all the other procedures involved in our mission.
Oddly enough, apart from the criticisism about all aspects of our formula, even using certain words such as "survey" have come under attack! Amazingly, our survey technique has also come under attack, the results we have achieved are all the aspirations that most detectorists dream of?
The reasoning for the unsavoury attacks on our success can only be viewed as extremely strange. I'm sure there will be a phsycologist out there that can analyse why such attacks occur. I'm sure that phsycologist would come to the same conclusions that the team have identified.
There will be a seperate feature coming soon detailing part of the survey technique we use so successfully.
This will hopefully provide the method to quickly work out the survey length required to cover an area or field accurately.
Without exception, there has always been an underlying current of "unhappiness" amongst detectorist's for a multitude of reasons.
We have tried to help detectorist's nationwide to benefit from the skills and experience we have accomplished to date.
It was not until October 2010 that I decided to take my metal detecting experience to another level. That story is featured on our home page.
The term "Successful Detecting" can be replaced with "How do I Achieve 100% Happiness in the Hobby of Metal Detecting?".
Below are examples where members of the detecting fraternity are not happy with their efforts. These examples are not "The Full Story".
It is with hope that some of our experience can be absorbed by fellow detectorist's.
Historically there has been a void between archaeology and the hobby.
Thankfully that void has been replaced with trust and respect.
Added to that, metal detector technology has advanced massively since my first BFO machine back in the 70's.
So, my challenge was how to attain that "higher level" of detecting and also enjoy the current ambient relationship the hobby has with archaeologists.
The first step was quite easy; upgrade my 17 year old machine with one that could easily cope with ancient sites efficiently and effectively.
The second step was a little trickier, to create a formula that would help achieve the goal of that crucial "next step up".
The formula in itself is quite simple; research, acquire permission, survey, results.
The content of the formula however is not that simple! Research is extremely labour intensive, acquiring a permission isn't straightforward,
the survey technique requires discipline and the results can be disappointing. Fortunately the latter is a rare occurance.
During the past 5 years I've noticed that the majority of detectorist's question all four parts of the above equation but one question that is perhaps greater than all of the above is; "what is the deepest detection depth that today's machines can achieve?". The "depth" question has no place in the equation as most of our recoveries have been retrieved from the first four inches of the field surface. Admittedly, those finds are the small items that most detectorist's dream of finding such as the hammered coins of the Roman or Medieval period.
What is strange is that there are claims of recovering these small hammered coins at a depth of 8 inches.... or more! This is the normal plough depth for most seeding operations so that would surely mean that no more small hammered coins will ever be recovered on that ploughland? Of course some coins that are edge on may be missed but that would be a minority so a return visit the following year could result in a very low recovery count in those "edge-on" coins?
From all the comments I've seen on social media it's apparent that the common excuse is to put the blame on everything rather than the simple fact that the history does not exist under their coils! What is accepted however, worldwide, is that "you've got to walk over it". This is quite perplexing as if you're not finding it, it isn't there!
Using the above formula helps negate the unrealistic need to "fondly imagine" that a hammered coin may exist in the field that you are about to survey. After all, who would want to drive three hours to a new site and then spend 8 hours searching with no recoveries and then drive the three hours back home?
Whilst trying to enhance the ambient relationship with the archaeological world we try to promote the professionalism that the relationship and hobby deserves. With this in mind, our reports hopefully reflect this, as does our survey technique and all the other procedures involved in our mission.
Oddly enough, apart from the criticisism about all aspects of our formula, even using certain words such as "survey" have come under attack! Amazingly, our survey technique has also come under attack, the results we have achieved are all the aspirations that most detectorists dream of?
The reasoning for the unsavoury attacks on our success can only be viewed as extremely strange. I'm sure there will be a phsycologist out there that can analyse why such attacks occur. I'm sure that phsycologist would come to the same conclusions that the team have identified.
There will be a seperate feature coming soon detailing part of the survey technique we use so successfully.
This will hopefully provide the method to quickly work out the survey length required to cover an area or field accurately.
RSS Feed
