close
more_vert

NIgel posted "IMO opinion, the first calc you do will be too low and the second will be vastly too high (distorted by someone bringing in their whole collection?)"

17 too low? I personally do not think that can be said across the board. I know of some detectorists who certainly find more recordable items than that. I also know of detectorists who find much less recordable items than that depending on their location - from zero finds which are deemed recordable to someone like myself who in nearly a year have had 5 items published on PAS with another 3 to be recorded shortly.

Norfolk has historically had a vast number of recorders who worked with the local units. The largest number of detectorists recording with PAS are in the County -The East region account for a third of total finds recorded.

There is no reliable way of calculating any figures for detectorists who do not record nor indeed the number of recordable finds they make. You are not talking apples and apples.

"There is no reliable way of calculating any figures for detectorists who do not record nor indeed the number of recordable finds they make. You are not talking apples and apples."

I agree Co.
So let's take for the sake of argument the lowest number of non-recorders that could be suspected and apply the lowest number of finds it could be expected they find, then halve the consequent estimate.... but after all that, the knowledge is STILL "ours" and they've taken it away! Numbers aren't the answer to questions of rightness and ownership.