Are relics valuable?

[LemonThrower]

i mostly hunt coin rolls but am thinking of getting into relic hunting with a MD. I live near some civil war sites.

Aside from the historical value, is there a monetary value to relic hunting? What am I likely to find - buttons, bullets, etc. - and what can you expect to sell them for?

Sorry if this sounds a bit mercernary but I am trying to justify my investment of money in a detector and the investment of my time.

[BuckleBoy]

Stick to coin roll hunting.

[ivan salis]

money making off of selling civil war or other relics ( say colonial stuff)--has lead many folks to the "dark side" of metal detecting --hunting forbidden areas --going places without land owner constent (tresspassing / theft of the land owners "goods" from their property --which is what it is when one hunts illegally)

metal detecting as such should be veiwed as a hobby ( that can make you a few bucks now and the if you sell your finds) * not as a "steady" money making venture --the steady money making mind set tends to lead one to the "dark side"

money is a good servant, but a terrible master ---- while metal detecting is a great hobby ---one has to watch out for becoming "infected" with the lust of money ( see the movie "treasure of the serria madre")--its a "sickness" --a sort of hunger that can never be filled *

[stefen]

Well stated

[cedarratt]

Well you can make money off of it but I would say the act of find stuff is the real reward, tho if I ever found more then one CSA buckle the worse of the two would get sold...

[ivan salis]

well keep the better , sell the lesser buckle would be my ideal as well --- unlike some "purist" --I do not say --"never sell a find" --- only watch out that the "greed bug" does not get ya --( thats when you sell every find in the name of cash ,and then turning to hunting illegally to find more stuff to sell mind set .) --- sadly it can and does happen to some folks. --- a person eat up with greed is a pityful sight indeed.

[johnnyi]

I agree with Buckles, stick to coins. You hunt relics for the love of it, and for sharing the history of it, never for the money.

[rjw4law]

I do not sell my relics...too attached...I love the History.

[dneyedli@res1.mts.net]

For $49.95... I will give you the answer.
Dave.

[BuckleBoy]

For $49.95... I will give you the answer.
Dave.

[turtlefoot13]

99% of my hunting is for relics (logging and railroad related). To date, I have never looked in a collector's book (or online) to find what any of the relics that I have found are worth. I hunt them for the history and to preserve the history.

Doug

[scratcher]

they are to me

[Iron Patch]

Like the others say hunt relics for the fun of it. There's kind of a relic passion default to this because if you are only doing it for the money you'll never last. It either takes a lot of effort or luck to make any money, and it's usually not luck.

As for the selling part I differ from most and will say I have no problem with it. Anyone who puts in an honest effort and finds a relic on a site they have permission has every right to do with it what they want. Just because you like to fish doesn't mean you have to eat em. I know guys that sell 100% of what they find and if that's their way so be it. One thing people probably don't think about is a sold relic always finds a good home so in the end it's always appreciated. (even if it was dug just for the $$$)

[PBK]

Anyone who puts in an honest effort and finds a relic on a site they have permission has every right to do with it what they want.

Well said!

I agree with those who point out that there is a certain responsibility that comes with the recovery of any important relic. However, I see no reason why good stewardship of a find should be confined only to keeping it or giving it away to some "deserving" person or institution. As Iron Patch says, more often than not it's a matter of effort rather than luck. Success is hard bought, both in terms of actual monetary investment and in skill, experience, and sweat equity. Those who have paid the price deserve to paid in return. No one else is entitled to claim or seize what you have worked long and hard to find— not archaeologists, not curators, not bureaucrats, not grasping "friends" or relatives... no one.

I might also add that selling a relic to an advanced collector very often assures its proper preservation and appreciation far more than handing it over to, say, a museum or university. Indeed, most of the definitive works on relics have been written by collectors and independent, avocational scholars. We know what we are doing, and we do it well. On the other hand, some of the greatest crimes against surviving fragments of the past have been committed by professionals with more degrees than a thermometer, and not a whit of practical ability or firsthand experience.

Hunting relics for money is a bad idea on a lot of levels— but receiving money for relics honestly and painstakingly obtained is a right which no one should surrender or deny.

[johnnyi]

Anyone who puts in an honest effort and finds a relic on a site they have permission has every right to do with it what they want.

Well said!

I agree with those who point out that there is a certain responsibility that comes with the recovery of any important relic. However, I see no reason why good stewardship of a find should be confined only to keeping it or giving it away to some "deserving" person or institution. As Iron Patch says, more often than not it's a matter of effort rather than luck. Success is hard bought, both in terms of actual monetary investment and in skill, experience, and sweat equity. Those who have paid the price deserve to paid in return. No one else is entitled to claim or seize what you have worked long and hard to find— not archaeologists, not curators, not bureaucrats, not grasping "friends" or relatives... no one.

I might also add that selling a relic to an advanced collector very often assures its proper preservation and appreciation far more than handing it over to, say, a museum or university. Indeed, most of the definitive works on relics have been written by collectors and independent, avocational scholars. We know what we are doing, and we do it well. On the other hand, some of the greatest crimes against surviving fragments of the past have been committed by professionals with more degrees than a thermometer, and not a whit of practical ability or firsthand experience.

Hunting relics for money is a bad idea on a lot of levels— but receiving money for relics honestly and painstakingly obtained is a right which no one should surrender or deny.

I agree with PBK, however what he is describing is not necesarily what we are discussing here. We are discussing mining relics for money.

As I see it, the differences between a true relic hunter and someone out to make a buck are as crystaline as the differences between an archeologist and a "pot hunter". One studies and documents the whole picture in context. The other picks and chooses what may sell, while leaving the historic context in shambles.

Once we value a relic in the same limited context as we would a stamp or coin we've diminished it. We've turned a tapestry into a single thread where the "red ones are worth more than the black or blue ones." It's true, some relics are valuable and we have a right to sell them at some point. When our objective though is to sell them above all else, we lose perspective. It is inevitable that we would lose perspective, and in so doing lose the tapestry.

It's almost pointless to spend the time to illustrate this, as we all know already. I've seen it over and over in Bolivia myself on the Inca ruins. We've seen it in the midwest on the indian mounds, in Utah, in Egypt, Italy, Turkey, on our battlefields, on countless sites where the valuable relics are mined and sold, with little if any record of provenance. Sure, it took research to find and exploit these historic sites, but that is little excuse for anything that happens afterwards.

If there's any responsible message we should be sending, it is to walk softly, to remember that we are more than detectorists; As PBK said so well , we are stewards of our history, and as it is in the U.K., we share some responsibility for what we find and how we document it. When our prime objective is money, that simply will not happen.

[ivan salis]

NO NO Rusty , Crusty Relics are totally worthless --thus leave them for "nut case"relic hunters to dig up.

[Iron Patch]

Anyone who puts in an honest effort and finds a relic on a site they have permission has every right to do with it what they want.

Well said!

I agree with those who point out that there is a certain responsibility that comes with the recovery of any important relic. However, I see no reason why good stewardship of a find should be confined only to keeping it or giving it away to some "deserving" person or institution. As Iron Patch says, more often than not it's a matter of effort rather than luck. Success is hard bought, both in terms of actual monetary investment and in skill, experience, and sweat equity. Those who have paid the price deserve to paid in return. No one else is entitled to claim or seize what you have worked long and hard to find— not archaeologists, not curators, not bureaucrats, not grasping "friends" or relatives... no one.

I might also add that selling a relic to an advanced collector very often assures its proper preservation and appreciation far more than handing it over to, say, a museum or university. Indeed, most of the definitive works on relics have been written by collectors and independent, avocational scholars. We know what we are doing, and we do it well. On the other hand, some of the greatest crimes against surviving fragments of the past have been committed by professionals with more degrees than a thermometer, and not a whit of practical ability or firsthand experience.

Hunting relics for money is a bad idea on a lot of levels— but receiving money for relics honestly and painstakingly obtained is a right which no one should surrender or deny.

I agree with PBK, however what he is describing is not necesarily what we are discussing here. We are discussing mining relics for money.

As I see it, the differences between a true relic hunter and someone out to make a buck are as crystaline as the differences between an archeologist and a "pot hunter". One studies and documents the whole picture in context. The other picks and chooses what may sell, while leaving the historic context in shambles.

Once we value a relic in the same limited context as we would a stamp or coin we've diminished it. We've turned a tapestry into a single thread where the "red ones are worth more than the black or blue ones." It's true, some relics are valuable and we have a right to sell them at some point. When our objective though is to sell them above all else, we lose perspective. It is inevitable that we would lose perspective, and in so doing lose the tapestry.

It's almost pointless to spend the time to illustrate this, as we all know already. I've seen it over and over in Bolivia myself on the Inca ruins. We've seen it in the midwest on the indian mounds, in Utah, in Egypt, Italy, Turkey, on our battlefields, on countless sites where the valuable relics are mined and sold, with little if any record of provenance. Sure, it took research to find and exploit these historic sites, but that is little excuse for anything that happens afterwards.

If there's any responsible message we should be sending, it is to walk softly, to remember that we are more than detectorists; As PBK said so well , we are stewards of our history, and as it is in the U.K., we share some responsibility for what we find and how we document it. When our prime objective is money, that simply will not happen.

If the poster doesn't enjoy coin roll hunting than I'll say the term "relic mining" applies, otherwise I think it's too harsh and isn't exactly accurate. (Only doing something for the money) I think he is looking at it the same way as clad hunting, just a little more interesting. Certainly not on the scale these posts make ot out to be. Maybe I'm wromg, but don't think so.

[pjroo33]

For me, it's all about the history. To pull something out of the ground and know that you are probably the first person to touch a given object in 250 years is a special feeling. If I find a coin that has monetary value and I am in desperate need of money for some reason, I will consider selling it, but I'd prefer to keep everything I find (to my wife's dismay)

[Iron Patch]

For me, it's all about the history. To pull something out of the ground and know that you are probably the first person to touch a given object in 250 years is a special feeling. If I find a coin that has monetary value and I am in desperate need of money for some reason, I will consider selling it, but I'd prefer to keep everything I find (to my wife's dismay)

Exactly and just because someone sells something doesn't mean they don't have that feeling. Sometimes I think it's the best of both worlds, the great feeling you get, and paid on top of it! But I'm like you, I can't part with my finds, at least most of the better stuff I have dug. Sometimes selling is the right thing to do if you have a valuable find and I have lost MANY hundreds on a button I hung on to. But keeping it was not about the money, it's because I wanted one. There's just one thing you have to know about selling.... you better be sure!

[BamaBill]

I would say that most of what you find is not all that valuable, especially when taken out of context. I would much rather see a shadow box of odds and ends that is loosely identified as coming from, say Athens Union Fort, than a knapsack J hook with no identifier at all. Afterall, what is history without a little context. But, to reiterate others' answer to the original poster, if you're into this for money, don't bother with relic hunting. Good sites are getting harder and harder to come by, so you gotta love history first and the relic recovery is just icing on the cake.