Thanks glad you liked the video

Thanks

I suspect some of the higher conductive coins would have yielded better signal and or higher ID than you got in this video. Using dive program vs beach sensitive.

Thanks for your thoughts, TNSS. At this particular beach, I just dig everything. At a coatal beach where there are potentially more modern coins and less time to dig due to tidal fluctuations, what you suggest would work well.

Well, One person actually did a few tests. And another actually did some actual digging on salt beach. Locating targets with beach sensitive and comparing to dive program. Seems higher conductors give better iD using dive program. Especially the deeper ones. A deeper high conductor may even give signal no ID using dive program and use of beach Sens Sensitive an even weaker to nonexistent tone. This seems to work for most (exposing higher conductors out of gold ring range). One catch though. Monster gold rings that can infact read at or near zincoln penny ID. User seems based on this one persons Tests using such a monster gold ring. Signal obtained using dive and beach sensitive signal about the same for strength comparing. So a person might want to dig such behaving signals. Person who did dig targets comparing before hand. It was obvious most times higher conductors gave higher ID using dive program. Vs I’d achieved using beach sensitive. ID more steady on the higher conductors too vs beach Sensitive. All in all is it a fish safe method. Nope. But could it same a person some time from digging deeper dimes, quarters and even some zincolns on a beach and spent more time getting over signals that when compared behave more like gold ring range signals? I think so. Cheers. Keep doing the vids. You do good ones.

There is a noticeable depth advantage over the 9, not any I can tell over the 11

13 is better for coverage, I think they are about the same depth wise.

@@RelicsRings ok thank's