|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Metal detectorist unhappy with valuation 20 messages | Select a forum: |
thesweetcheat wrote: Yes and no, I think. Fact is, it's his hobby. If he likes doing it, he's staying away from scheduled sites, finding things that otherwise will never turn up and every now and again he gets a modest amount of "reward", I don't have a huge problem with that, other than the usual concerns about loss of any archaeological context for the find. In fact, if that's his motivation then the money shouldn't really be an issue for him at all, he's done his thing, had a nice day out (presumably) and found something nice for the public to appreciate. Bingo. But if he's detecting expressly for financial gain, rather than looking for stuff to share with the public, for his own enjoyment and for the public's good, then he seems to be wanting a big payout for very little, in fact a big payout for going out and doing something he actually wants to do in his own time. It's not like he has a contract or anyone's forcing him to go out with his detector is it? If he doesn't like the ratio of effort to reward, he can always find another hobby. I think you are wrong to address the finder and his hobby as the problem. Perhaps you have a problem with metal detectorists who follow the rules and report finds. I don't. The problem is that the TVC had decided to wriggle round this section of the Treasure Act... "Any metallic object, other than a coin, provided that at least 10 per cent by weight of metal is precious metal (that is, gold or silver) and that it is at least 300 years old when found." They have decided to interpret the gold rings part of the find as "coin" methinks and ignored the next part of the guideline. It is a recent move and a new interpretation of these gold ring ornaments (and one without any archaeological basis) and one which has had a number of regional archaeology services groaning. It is purely a way of denying finders the monetary reward they are due. The TVC interpretation has little or no weight in archaeological circles. If I found one of those gold rings while out walking (perhaps it had been scooped out of a rabbit burrow) then I would either be faced with keeping it in a drawer or giving it over to the Portable Antiquities Scheme. If I chose the latter I'd want the value for finding a Bronze Age gold ring. I would want more than a couple of pounds for it. If I chose to keep it in my drawer maybe I'd end up getting my jeweller friend to melt it down to make a nice brooch for my OH. Who knows. I presume Mr Walker is going about his detection with a dream of finding something of value or some interesting nick-nacks. Why not? It is not against the law. Possible financial gain of a few thousand pounds? Sounds great to me. The British Museum gets a delightful looking Bronze Age axe head and four lovely gold rings. That is what Treasure Trove is (or was). It was to keep the good stuff Public. Not being melted for bullion. The Culture Secretary Maria Miller was defrauding us of £11,250 per year for the last four years. This guy should have been paid the proper rate. He's just a little guy who made a nice find, did the right thing and is being fleeced by National Cultural Bodies and Legal Loopholes who won't stump up the few grand he is due. How many other finders will this TVC move cause to think again about their finds? Many I would imagine. And I wouldn't blame them. I am sure he will continue his hobby and will think twice about doing the right thing next time. Good luck to him. Reply | with quote |  14th April 2014ce 21:10 In reply to: Re: Metal detectorist unhappy with valuation (thesweetcheat) |
Messages in this topic: |