Smithbrown
Bronze Member
- May 22, 2006
- 1,002
- 831
British government allow the removal of artefacts from HMS Victory, lost 1744 off Alderney: BBC News - HMS Victory 1744 shipwreck: Artefacts to be recovered
HMS Victory- update
- Thread starter Smithbrown
- Start date
This was a big win for OMEX and for sensible people everywhere, including British citizens interested in their maritime heritage.
Properly executed, this could give professional salvors some much needed good press.
SADS 669
Bronze Member
- Jan 20, 2013
- 2,454
- 3,734
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Sand Shark....Aqua pulse 1B....Equinox ll
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
JM, Only if they play fair??
Odyssey discovered Victory back in 2008 and immediately notified the UK Defense Ministry.
Odyssey signed a salvage contract with the UK in Sept of 2009 and has been working with the British government ever since to develop a plan of action regarding Victory.
How can they play any more fairly??
MORE AND BEYOND OSSY
Bronze Member
What's your point? That Odyssey filed an arrest? Of course they did. Why wouldn't they?
Here is the salient quote from the story: "The site was examined with the assistance of Wessex Archaeology, working for English Heritage; the Department of Culture, Media & Sport; and the Royal Navy's survey vessel HMS Roebuck. Odyssey has independently confirmed that the wreck is, in its view, Victory."
SADS 669
Bronze Member
- Jan 20, 2013
- 2,454
- 3,734
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Sand Shark....Aqua pulse 1B....Equinox ll
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
Good point well made, let's hope they keep to the big picture....
ARC
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2014
- 37,272
- 131,685
- Detector(s) used
- JW 8X-ML X2-VP 585
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Sadds They have an 80-20 split with English.
And I bet they got it signed in blood BEFORE they went to sea in search.
A 500 million dollar loss will do that to ya... heh.
ARRC,
Odyssey has a contract with MHF, not the British Government.
MHF is subject to provisions set forth by the MOD, Advisory Group, and other relevant UNESCO parameters.
While the MHF contract with Odyssey is relevant, it is overarched by permissions and requirements of the UK Secretary of State.
As an example, if the agreement states that the artefacts cannot be sold, then 80% of nothing, is well, nothing.
Odyssey has a contract with MHF, not the British Government.
MHF is subject to provisions set forth by the MOD, Advisory Group, and other relevant UNESCO parameters.
While the MHF contract with Odyssey is relevant, it is overarched by permissions and requirements of the UK Secretary of State.
As an example, if the agreement states that the artefacts cannot be sold, then 80% of nothing, is well, nothing.
ARC
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2014
- 37,272
- 131,685
- Detector(s) used
- JW 8X-ML X2-VP 585
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I am totally unaware of the details of any agreements they may or may not have other than the basic statements I have heard through the "grapevine".
I have not followed it at all...
other than the few things I have read and seen on it... I have no knowledge concerning "the deal".
But
have tons of knowledge about that ship .Buthave tons of knowledge about that ship .
That is curious.
Can you provide a copy or a link to a copy of the original Amsterdamish Courant article about the merchant moneys aboard the vessel? I would prefer the pre-translated version.
Last edited:
I am totally unaware of the details of any agreements they may or may not have other than the basic statements I have heard through the "grapevine".
I have not followed it at all...
other than the few things I have read and seen on it... I have no knowledge concerning "the deal".
But
I see that you are relatively new to this forum, AARC. You may not realize there are a couple of Tnet members who basically only show up to bash Omex. They have been doing it for years on this forum and a couple of other forums under different aliases. It is rather hilarious, actually. I had no idea myself until a few months ago when another member tipped me off as to the true identity of the poster(s) in question.
For anyone interested, the supposed violations committed by Odyssey in 2012 were during routine surveying/ mapping and done with the full knowledge and backing of the Maritime Heritage Foundation (and probably the UK Secretary of State and Ministry of Defense as well, but that is another story). This is why there was no punishment for the infractions. Dropping a lead fishing weight into the water is technically a violation of portions of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act.
Remember, Odyssey discovered Victory in 2008.
As to the red herring regarding potential conflicts with UNESCO on monetization of recoveries from Victory, bear in mind the United Kingdom has not ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and Victory lies in international waters. The UK is not bound by treaty or treaty annex.
Under agreement with the UK Ministry of Defense, Odyssey recovered two cannon from the Victory site in 2009 and was awarded $160,000 for the act. One of the guns was later sold, yes, sold to the Museum of the Royal Navy for 50,000 pounds. So much for UNESCO !!
Here is the Gift of Deed awarded to the Maritime Heritage Foundation for Victory back in 2012 (Read sections 1-4 carefully):
Last edited:
As noted in my post above, Odyssey marine was found to have violated Section 2 by the MMO.
With regard to the cannon, the cannon were not recovered by Odyssey and sold to the MOD. The MOD contracted Odyssey to recover those 2 cannon. Odyssey was basically paid a day rate to recover the 2 cannon as evidence of the site.
Do you really think that those 2 cannon, one of which is the only known example, were only worth $160,000?
I would provide the following, which was posted on the internet, stating it was obtained by FOIA from DCS to MHF.
"The VICTORY wreck site certainly comprises a wide area and for archaeological purposes has to be viewed holistically. While the site may contain a mixture of Crown and ‘personal’ artefacts, you will understand that we would not be willing to sanction a search for the latter which would cause detriment to the site. In practice therefore, the site has to be treated as one and I know you recognize that both HMG and the Foundation will need to ensure that any action taken in respect of it is consistent with the provisions of the “Rules to the Annex” of the UNESCO Convention.
Finally, I am not convinced that the concept of “trade goods” is applicable in the case of the HMS VICTORY and her cargo. The ship, a warship of the Royal Navy, was lost while returning from a naval mission to relieve the French blockade of British ships in the River Targus in Portugal. We are thus firmly of the view that the ship, at the time of her loss, was operating on Government non-commercial service.
It is I suppose possible-though as you are aware, we believe the possibility is remote-that the ship was carrying private consignments of goods, but this would have been in accordance with the practice of the time, whereby the provision of protection and safe passage to the property of private citizens was a recognized military function of the Royal Navy, particularly in times of war."
Odyssey Marine and Cameron Peer Out of Control on HMS Victory
There is this document from MOD.
Protection and Management of Historic Military Wrecks outside UK Territorial Waters
Treatment of recoveries: Archaeological material recovered from the wreck site and the associated archive including site plans, drawings and photographs will form one collection and shall be subject to the following conditions:
In managing the collection abide by the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics (dependant on location of wreck).
All such recovered archaeological material and its associated archive should remain together as a single assemblage wherever possible.
The commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is fundamentally incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods (Rule 2 of the Annex to the UNESCO Convention).
Where the disposal of any material from the collection is proposed, the principles of Rule 2 of the Annex to the UNESCO Convention and the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics (dependant on location of wreck) will be applied.
Any decision to dispose of archaeological material shall not be made without full consideration of the merits of the case. In the exceptional circumstances where consent is given to the disposal of archaeological material it shall normally be limited to the transfer of such material to an accredited museum or a body registered as a charity in England and Wales or Scotland (dependant on wreck
location) rather than to private individuals or organisations.
One should note that the Museum Code of Ethics prohibits the selling of artefacts to fund operations.
With regard to the cannon, the cannon were not recovered by Odyssey and sold to the MOD. The MOD contracted Odyssey to recover those 2 cannon. Odyssey was basically paid a day rate to recover the 2 cannon as evidence of the site.
Do you really think that those 2 cannon, one of which is the only known example, were only worth $160,000?
I would provide the following, which was posted on the internet, stating it was obtained by FOIA from DCS to MHF.
"The VICTORY wreck site certainly comprises a wide area and for archaeological purposes has to be viewed holistically. While the site may contain a mixture of Crown and ‘personal’ artefacts, you will understand that we would not be willing to sanction a search for the latter which would cause detriment to the site. In practice therefore, the site has to be treated as one and I know you recognize that both HMG and the Foundation will need to ensure that any action taken in respect of it is consistent with the provisions of the “Rules to the Annex” of the UNESCO Convention.
Finally, I am not convinced that the concept of “trade goods” is applicable in the case of the HMS VICTORY and her cargo. The ship, a warship of the Royal Navy, was lost while returning from a naval mission to relieve the French blockade of British ships in the River Targus in Portugal. We are thus firmly of the view that the ship, at the time of her loss, was operating on Government non-commercial service.
It is I suppose possible-though as you are aware, we believe the possibility is remote-that the ship was carrying private consignments of goods, but this would have been in accordance with the practice of the time, whereby the provision of protection and safe passage to the property of private citizens was a recognized military function of the Royal Navy, particularly in times of war."
Odyssey Marine and Cameron Peer Out of Control on HMS Victory
There is this document from MOD.
Protection and Management of Historic Military Wrecks outside UK Territorial Waters
Treatment of recoveries: Archaeological material recovered from the wreck site and the associated archive including site plans, drawings and photographs will form one collection and shall be subject to the following conditions:
In managing the collection abide by the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics (dependant on location of wreck).
All such recovered archaeological material and its associated archive should remain together as a single assemblage wherever possible.
The commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is fundamentally incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods (Rule 2 of the Annex to the UNESCO Convention).
Where the disposal of any material from the collection is proposed, the principles of Rule 2 of the Annex to the UNESCO Convention and the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics (dependant on location of wreck) will be applied.
Any decision to dispose of archaeological material shall not be made without full consideration of the merits of the case. In the exceptional circumstances where consent is given to the disposal of archaeological material it shall normally be limited to the transfer of such material to an accredited museum or a body registered as a charity in England and Wales or Scotland (dependant on wreck
location) rather than to private individuals or organisations.
One should note that the Museum Code of Ethics prohibits the selling of artefacts to fund operations.
Last edited:
Not to bore anyone, but once again the UK is bound neither by UNESCO treaty, nor by treaty annex. The MOD has attempted to utilize UNESCO Annex guidelines in regards recoveries, but they are nothing more than guidelines. Here is a salient portion from Appendix D of the MOD's Protection and Management of Historic Military Wrecks outside UK Territorial Waters:
" Any decision to dispose of archaeological material shall not be made without full consideration of the merits of the case. In the exceptional circumstances where consent is given to the disposal of archaeological material it shall normally be limited to the transfer of such material to an accredited museum or a body registered as a charity in England and Wales or Scotland (dependant on wreck location) rather than to private individuals or organisations."
Emphasis mine.
In regards the contention that cannon from Victory were not sold, here is a copy and paste and link to an article in the UK Guardian in which the sale is confirmed and the Archies panties are severely ruffled:
"Two bronze guns have already been recovered from the wreck and sold to the National Museum of the Royal Navy for £50,000, funded out of the MoD's grant." Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to 'plunder' shipwreck | UK news | The Guardian
The point here is not that the cannon were sold to an institution at what was obviously a bargain price, but that they were sold.
UNESCO annex approved??
" Any decision to dispose of archaeological material shall not be made without full consideration of the merits of the case. In the exceptional circumstances where consent is given to the disposal of archaeological material it shall normally be limited to the transfer of such material to an accredited museum or a body registered as a charity in England and Wales or Scotland (dependant on wreck location) rather than to private individuals or organisations."
Emphasis mine.
In regards the contention that cannon from Victory were not sold, here is a copy and paste and link to an article in the UK Guardian in which the sale is confirmed and the Archies panties are severely ruffled:
"Two bronze guns have already been recovered from the wreck and sold to the National Museum of the Royal Navy for £50,000, funded out of the MoD's grant." Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to 'plunder' shipwreck | UK news | The Guardian
The point here is not that the cannon were sold to an institution at what was obviously a bargain price, but that they were sold.
UNESCO annex approved??
Last edited:
Kevan Jones (Shadow Minister (Defence); North Durham, Labour)To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether all items of cultural material from the HMS Victory 1744 wreck site will be acquired by the Maritime Heritage Foundation for deposition in one complete museum archive as required by the UNESCO Annex and Key Management Principles.
Anna Soubry (The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence; Broxtowe, Conservative)The project will follow applicable UK law, conditions of the Deed of Gift and the archaeological principles set out in Annex A of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. It is planned that all cultural items transferred under the Deed of Gift will be accessioned into the Victory 1744 Collection, as will the associated archive, including site plans, drawings and photographs. The Maritime Heritage Foundation has committed to manage and curate the Collection in line with the Museum Association's Code of Ethics for Museums. No items transferred under the Deed of Gift may be sold or disposed of without the consent of the Secretary of State for Defence.
Darren in NC
Silver Member
- Apr 1, 2004
- 2,780
- 1,574
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Sand Shark, Homebuilt pulse loop
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
What's your angle AUVnav? Why do you rarely post anything of interest on Tnet, but are quick to discredit Odyssey here? Did you used to work for them? Did they do something to you? Do you work for Meson Capital? Just curious.
The desperation is palpable !!
Kevan Jones can "ask" the Secretary of State for Defense whatever questions he wishes... But this doesn't mean he will get the answers he desires...
Ms. Soubry is correct...The project will follow applicable UK law and conditions of the Deed of Gift.
But therein lies the rub for the anti-salvage crowd.
Applicable UK law and the conditions of the Deed are straight forward.
Once again, let me call attention to Section 1 of the Deed of Gift awarded MHF for Victory:
"1). The Secretary of State hereby transfers to The Company:
(a) Every part of the said vessel; and
(b) all that is connected with her which is situated in the immediate vicinity of where she is lying (save insofar of personal property not belonging to the crown)"
All recovered items will initially be turned over to the UK Receiver of Wrecks for disposition.
Under UK salvage law, this means all parties will have one year to prove ownership.
Certain items (munitions, ship artifacts, etc.) will obviously belong to the crown and as such will probably be more or less handled under UNESCO Annex guidelines and kept together in one collection. Bravo. This is as it should be. Even so, the salvor, Odyssey, will still be eligible for a salvage award for recovering these items (like the $160,000 award they already received for the two recovered cannon). Incidentally, normally the Receiver of Wrecks and the salvor work together to determine a fair award value...I am sure Odyssey was being generous in agreeing to the $200,000 valuation of those two guns (as a matter of fact, Odyssey ended up donating $75,000 of their recovery award).
But here is the great part vis a vis Odyssey...any coins, specie and other items recovered from the Victory site that cannot be proved to belong to the crown remain personal property. The burden of proof as far as ownership belongs to the claimant.
Here is the appicable law: https://www.gov.uk/wreck-and-salvage-law
" If wreck from UK territorial waters is unclaimed at the end of one year, the Receiver will dispose of the find on behalf of the Crown. If wreck from outside UK territorial waters is unclaimed at the end of one year, the Crown makes no claim."
And guess what, Scrappy? HMS Victory lies outside UK territorial waters...
Kevan Jones can "ask" the Secretary of State for Defense whatever questions he wishes... But this doesn't mean he will get the answers he desires...
Ms. Soubry is correct...The project will follow applicable UK law and conditions of the Deed of Gift.
But therein lies the rub for the anti-salvage crowd.
Applicable UK law and the conditions of the Deed are straight forward.
Once again, let me call attention to Section 1 of the Deed of Gift awarded MHF for Victory:
"1). The Secretary of State hereby transfers to The Company:
(a) Every part of the said vessel; and
(b) all that is connected with her which is situated in the immediate vicinity of where she is lying (save insofar of personal property not belonging to the crown)"
All recovered items will initially be turned over to the UK Receiver of Wrecks for disposition.
Under UK salvage law, this means all parties will have one year to prove ownership.
Certain items (munitions, ship artifacts, etc.) will obviously belong to the crown and as such will probably be more or less handled under UNESCO Annex guidelines and kept together in one collection. Bravo. This is as it should be. Even so, the salvor, Odyssey, will still be eligible for a salvage award for recovering these items (like the $160,000 award they already received for the two recovered cannon). Incidentally, normally the Receiver of Wrecks and the salvor work together to determine a fair award value...I am sure Odyssey was being generous in agreeing to the $200,000 valuation of those two guns (as a matter of fact, Odyssey ended up donating $75,000 of their recovery award).
But here is the great part vis a vis Odyssey...any coins, specie and other items recovered from the Victory site that cannot be proved to belong to the crown remain personal property. The burden of proof as far as ownership belongs to the claimant.
Here is the appicable law: https://www.gov.uk/wreck-and-salvage-law
" If wreck from UK territorial waters is unclaimed at the end of one year, the Receiver will dispose of the find on behalf of the Crown. If wreck from outside UK territorial waters is unclaimed at the end of one year, the Crown makes no claim."
And guess what, Scrappy? HMS Victory lies outside UK territorial waters...
Last edited:
The HMS Victory was gifted with a Deed of Trust, NOT a Deed of Title. The UK Govt still maintains control. The wreck is located within the UK EEZ, hence the permit required from MMO.
You keep talking about a salvage award. Do you really think that the UK Government, signed the wrecksite over with a Deed of Trust to a Foundation, just so they could purchase back what they already owned?
You state this,
Darren, I have provided quite a few informational posts on a wide variety of subjects throughout TNet over the years. In this thread, there has not been any news on the Victory for quite some time. Relevant recent news was the finding by the MMO, which is why relevant news was provided. Sorry if you have an issue with that.
You can blind pump Odyssey if you like, but there is the whole story to review in context. Current shareprice is less that $1.00, so while many of continue swilling the Odyssey Koolaid, the market obviously has not.
You keep talking about a salvage award. Do you really think that the UK Government, signed the wrecksite over with a Deed of Trust to a Foundation, just so they could purchase back what they already owned?
You state this,
So Odyssey does plan to monetize the Sailors personal property. Nice.
Darren, I have provided quite a few informational posts on a wide variety of subjects throughout TNet over the years. In this thread, there has not been any news on the Victory for quite some time. Relevant recent news was the finding by the MMO, which is why relevant news was provided. Sorry if you have an issue with that.
You can blind pump Odyssey if you like, but there is the whole story to review in context. Current shareprice is less that $1.00, so while many of continue swilling the Odyssey Koolaid, the market obviously has not.
The principle of a salvage award in UK wreck and salvage law has nothing to do with an owning entity "buying something back" from the salvor.
A salvage award is simply the monetary compensation awarded to the salvor by the UK Receiver of Wrecks for the act of recovering the property for the owner.
Since Crown owned items have been deeded to the Maritime Heritage Foundation in the case of Victory, that organization will be responsible for compensating Odyssey for the recovery. These monies could come from numerous sources once MHF has control of the artifacts.
By the way, Crappa, thanks for launching into a tirade about "blind pumping" and the $1.00 Odyssey stock share price on a treasure hunting forum when no one else had even mentioned it.
Funny you should be the first one to mention the stock market and share price on this thread ...LOL...
Why don't ya just stick to Yahoo Finance ??
Top Member Reactions
-
2350 -
1127 -
1048 -
887 -
824 -
797 -
753 -
751 -
606 -
500 -
491 -
473 -
465 -
423 -
385 -
383 -
381 -
381 -
376 -
O
375
