Another "hypothetical" find... Gold coins

[Limitool]

And that's all there is to it. Permission granted by owner to access and play (ATV, hunt, walk and MD).

 

[catman04]

For what it's worth, I agree with both FRANKN & UNCLEBUCK257. When I find coins that are not a cache, there's never a question of who to sell them to or how many I should add to my collection. A cache, however, is a different story. If the cache was Civil War era or had once belonged to the government 100, 150, 175 years ago, I'd start canvassing the heavy-hitters that collect. Sell 3 or 4 to each always keeping the literal truth to yourself. It's not a lie to say that you're selling part of your "collection" but if you publicize it, Uncle Sam can step in and claim an immediate 50% & you'll pay taxes on the remaining 50% as you sell them. So, keep quiet & sell to large dealers and private collectors at 3-5 coins each. A large cache can take years to sell. Collectors will give you closer to collectors value and dealers will buy around 80% (they do have to make a profit afterall).

 

[Arizona Bob]

I would split the find in half. I would stash half the gold somewhere on the property, and take the other half home. The next day I would talk with the landowner. I would ask him to treasure hunt his property. I would have my attorney draw an agreement for a 50-50 split on any finds, plus confidentiality, etc. Some days later, I would find the stashed gold and turn it in to the landowner (per our written agreement). I would expect two outcomes in this situation. Either the landowner would abide by his agreement or he wouldn't.

Option #1: Landowner turns over half the gold to me per our agreement.

Option #2: Landowner refuses to give half the gold to me.

I will discuss Option #2 first. If landowner refuses to abide by our agreement, I walk away and have no problem keeping the half of the gold that I brought home. Life goes on!

If Option #1 occurs, then the landowner has abided by our agreement and has given me back half of the gold he has. I wait a short while and have my attorney draw a new agreement for a 50-50 split (etc) on my next treasure hunting expedition. Landowner signs and I wait a few days to "find" the rest of the gold. I now have some trust with the landowner so I give him all the gold I found on my new expedition. The landowner returns half the gold back to me, and life is beautiful!

 

[Limitool]

For what it's worth, I agree with both FRANKN & UNCLEBUCK257. When I find coins that are not a cache, there's never a question of who to sell them to or how many I should add to my collection. A cache, however, is a different story. If the cache was Civil War era or had once belonged to the government 100, 150, 175 years ago, I'd start canvassing the heavy-hitters that collect. Sell 3 or 4 to each always keeping the literal truth to yourself. It's not a lie to say that you're selling part of your "collection" but if you publicize it, Uncle Sam can step in and claim an immediate 50% & you'll pay taxes on the remaining 50% as you sell them. So, keep quiet & sell to large dealers and private collectors at 3-5 coins each. A large cache can take years to sell. Collectors will give you closer to collectors value and dealers will buy around 80% (they do have to make a profit afterall).

I agree with them also and you.... finding the heavy-hitters would be a "treasure hunt" within itself.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Well then i guess that all those ...Pro Treasure Hunters…. should give all there great finds back to the owners .. But when some one finds out they have found it .. Those Pro hunters will go to court to try to keep there finds…….. They must all have no moral's or conscience ….. Come on now we do not spend this money on equipment and our time to give it away … You guys have to be the most self righteous bunch i have ever seen …. I hope you all did not break your arms patting your selves on the back...

Maybe, maybe not. Your use of the term "pro" implies that they were doing it for a living. That changes the situation a bit, doesn't it?

I discussed this a bit a few pages back. Heck, I even discussed it a bit in the passage that you quoted, but I'll rehash it again briefly: taking someone's property without their consent is theft, whether or not they know about it. Some people can justify this, as they need the money. I don't need it, so I can't personally justify it. I don't really consider this to be self-righteous.

To put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel if you were the land owner in this situation? I know how I'd feel.

What if, instead of a cache, we were talking about an old maple tree with nicely figured wood? The land owner has a whole forest and doesn't know that tree is even there. He wouldn't miss it if I dropped it and hauled it out with me. Would I be wrong in doing so?

 

[jeff of pa]

Though it is not against the rules to ask hypothetical questions, How can anyone answer Honestly
until it happens ?

personally I could try and be funny & say melt them into a bar, or re bury them.

I could say I'd sell them off one by one.

I could take the "Look at me I'm honest" Route
and say I'd notify the owner,

Or act holier then thou & ask Do I have permission Or am I trespassing in this
hypothetical situation, Or

I could lie & say any reward I get I would donate to Charity

so Sorry, Until it happens I don't know . But I hope I'd have a Brand new Vehicle for Traveling,
Enough Gas to last my Life,
& 2 Brand new Backup detectors
the next morning when I wake up

 

[Frankn]

Though it is not against the rules to ask hypothetical questions, How can anyone answer Honestly
until it happens ?

personally I could try and be funny & say melt them into a bar, or re bury them.

I could say I'd sell them off one by one.

I could take the "Look at me I'm honest" Route
and say I'd notify the owner,

Or act holier then thou & ask Do I have permission Or am I trespassing in this
hypothetical situation, Or

I could lie & say any reward I get I would donate to Charity

so Sorry, Until it happens I don't know . But I hope I'd have a Brand new Vehicle for Traveling,
Enough Gas to last my Life,
& 2 Brand new Backup detectors
the next morning when I wake up

Oh we all know what we would do, It's just a matter of who's looking! lol
Frank...-

 

[Frankn]

Maybe, maybe not. Your use of the term "pro" implies that they were doing it for a living. That changes the situation a bit, doesn't it?

I discussed this a bit a few pages back. Heck, I even discussed it a bit in the passage that you quoted, but I'll rehash it again briefly: taking someone's property without their consent is theft, whether or not they know about it. Some people can justify this, as they need the money. I don't need it, so I can't personally justify it. I don't really consider this to be self-righteous.

To put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel if you were the land owner in this situation? I know how I'd feel.

What if, instead of a cache, we were talking about an old maple tree with nicely figured wood? The land owner has a whole forest and doesn't know that tree is even there. He wouldn't miss it if I dropped it and hauled it out with me. Would I be wrong in doing so?

I think you are assuming things too. First off, how do you know the cache belongs to the land owner? Maybe his neighbor put it there. Maybe the midnight bandit cached it.
Another point is would I care if I was the landowner and the finder didn't inform me. NOT ONE BIT! You can't miss something you never knew you had. Think about it!
Frank...-

 

[Limitool]

I think you are assuming things too. First off, how do you know the cache belongs to the land owner? Maybe his neighbor put it there. Maybe the midnight bandit cached it.
Another point is would I care if I was the landowner and the finder didn't inform me. NOT ONE BIT! You can't miss something you never knew you had. Think about it! Frank...-

"Another point is would I care if I was the landowner and the finder didn't inform me. NOT ONE BIT! You can't miss something you never knew you had." THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT no more or no less.... including all and no more of the variables stated throughout my postings of this thread. Hell the California couple found a cache on their OWN property and are now apparently going to lose 45-48% to the Govt. NOW.... just because the landowner didn't know it was there and he granted you verbal permission to hunt, MD, ATV and play doesn't mean he can't be "rewarded" in some form from the finder. What if the find was enough to easily double his investment from 5 years ago and grant/give him total permission to do everything he wanted the land for in the first place?

 

[Dave Rishar]

I think you are assuming things too. First off, how do you know the cache belongs to the land owner? Maybe his neighbor put it there. Maybe the midnight bandit cached it.

If it's on his land and no one else can rightfully claim it, then I know that it legally belongs to the land owner. I don't have to assume anything. If someone else can be tracked down as the owner, then I know that they own it - no assumptions required here either. In neither case am I the owner simply because I found it.

Another point is would I care if I was the landowner and the finder didn't inform me. NOT ONE BIT! You can't miss something you never knew you had. Think about it!

I did think about it, which is why I commented on it.

What I keep hearing here is that it's okay for me to do something that both the property owner and the law may have a problem with, just as long as I don't let anyone know about it. Do I really need to point out the problems with this rationale? Do I need to keep presenting other examples where this is obviously not okay? I know that some (most?) people would take the money and run. We both know what's going on here though. I can completely understand this approach, but the attempts at justifying it ("What he doesn't know won't hurt him!") make my head hurt.

Yes, if I found a cache on your land and ran off with it without saying anything, you wouldn't be angry because you didn't know about it. But what if you did know? Most folks would be mighty angry and rightfully so. Why is it right in one case and wrong in the other? How is an act that would be wrong if the victim knew about it suddenly right if they're deceived? I'm having trouble understanding this. Sure, I can understand how that would allow me to get away with it, but I don't understand how it makes it right.

I suppose that Jeff is right, and that one can't truly know how they'd respond in this situation until it happens. I'm basing my opinions on earlier situations (admittedly with lower stakes) and how I handled them when no one was looking. I'd like to think that I'd continue in this way, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, everyone has a price where greed overtakes integrity. I don't know my price yet. Maybe, just maybe, a bag or two of gold is that price. I'd like to think that I'm worth more than that but I honestly don't really know. Should I ever find a bag of gold under these circumstances, I will report back about how I conducted myself - in suitably vague terms, of course.

I'm sure arrow heads, Ginseng,Nuts,berries, or what ever is being taken off my land! I don't really care.

What if it was something worth a lot more than arrow heads, ginseng, nuts, berries, etc.? Would you still not care?

 

[Frankn]

If it's on his land and no one else can rightfully claim it, then I know that it legally belongs to the land owner. I don't have to assume anything. If someone else can be tracked down as the owner, then I know that they own it - no assumptions required here either. In neither case am I the owner simply because I found it.



I did think about it, which is why I commented on it.

What I keep hearing here is that it's okay for me to do something that both the property owner and the law may have a problem with, just as long as I don't let anyone know about it. Do I really need to point out the problems with this rationale? Do I need to keep presenting other examples where this is obviously not okay? I know that some (most?) people would take the money and run. We both know what's going on here though. I can completely understand this approach, but the attempts at justifying it ("What he doesn't know won't hurt him!") make my head hurt.

Yes, if I found a cache on your land and ran off with it without saying anything, you wouldn't be angry because you didn't know about it. But what if you did know? Most folks would be mighty angry and rightfully so. Why is it right in one case and wrong in the other? How is an act that would be wrong if the victim knew about it suddenly right if they're deceived? I'm having trouble understanding this. Sure, I can understand how that would allow me to get away with it, but I don't understand how it makes it right.

I suppose that Jeff is right, and that one can't truly know how they'd respond in this situation until it happens. I'm basing my opinions on earlier situations (admittedly with lower stakes) and how I handled them when no one was looking. I'd like to think that I'd continue in this way, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, everyone has a price where greed overtakes integrity. I don't know my price yet. Maybe, just maybe, a bag or two of gold is that price. I'd like to think that I'm worth more than that but I honestly don't really know. Should I ever find a bag of gold under these circumstances, I will report back about how I conducted myself - in suitably vague terms, of course.



What if it was something worth a lot more than arrow heads, ginseng, nuts, berries, etc.? Would you still not care?

There is a big difference in knowing and not knowing a cache has been removed.
Mel Fisher found that treasure laden galleon.If he were able to remove the riches without the State finding out, It would have been simple finders/keepers. The state found out and tried to take it all. It caused Fisher a lot of money and grief, but the Supreme Court decided that it all belonged to Fisher. The state spent the rest of Fishers life going after him to get even. He died of cancer before the end.
Now do you see my reason for saying find it , tell no one and vanish?

As far as doing something that is against the law, how about exceeding the speed limit, and just about everyone does it constantly. Laws are composed of two parts, the letter of the law, which is it's exact written text, and the spirit of the law, which is the reasoning behind the law. The speed limit use to be used to try to cut down accidents, but the law is now used to collect a 'road tax'.
Mel Fisher won his court decision on the spirit of the constitutional law. The states pressured Congress to pass a new law that states all found ships belong to the state. How that tops the constitution I haven't figured out yet.
Dave, you have to start being honest with yourself. You probably break some law every day, I know I do and I make no beans about it since I am a realist. Have a good day,
Frank...-
The butterfly of life drifts on the wind.

 

[jeff of pa]

as far as I can remember back,
every time I have showed a property owner my finds and asked "Do you want any of it ?"
the answer has always been, "You found it, it's yours !"

'nuff said

 

[Escape]

as far as I can remember back,
every time I have showed a property owner my finds and asked "Do you want any of it ?"
the answer has always been, "You found it, it's yours !"

'nuff said

You didnt show him to bags of gold.

 

[Limitool]

as far as I can remember back,
every time I have showed a property owner my finds and asked "Do you want any of it ?"
the answer has always been, "You found it, it's yours !"

'nuff said

Jeff I have NO DOUBT that what you stated above is true. But if you found 100+ mid-1800's gold coins would you cart them up to the land owner who lives a long ways away (or close) who wasn't looking for them or had any idea of there presence? It's way different then finding 1 old coin and showing them along with all the iron. But I don't doubt you AT ALL GUY!

 

[Dave Rishar]

There is a big difference in knowing and not knowing a cache has been removed.
Mel Fisher found that treasure laden galleon.If he were able to remove the riches without the State finding out, It would have been simple finders/keepers. The state found out and tried to take it all. It caused Fisher a lot of money and grief, but the Supreme Court decided that it all belonged to Fisher. The state spent the rest of Fishers life going after him to get even. He died of cancer before the end.
Now do you see my reason for saying find it , tell no one and vanish?

It was my understanding that they tried to take 25% from him, which might have been fair if they'd had a legal claim on it in the first place. As it turned out, the courts decided otherwise. That's really kind of a special case though and proves my earlier point about everyone having a price...when there are enough zeroes to the right of the number, even a government may do the wrong thing.

As far as doing something that is against the law, how about exceeding the speed limit, and just about everyone does it constantly. Laws are composed of two parts, the letter of the law, which is it's exact written text, and the spirit of the law, which is the reasoning behind the law. The speed limit use to be used to try to cut down accidents, but the law is now used to collect a 'road tax'.
Mel Fisher won his court decision on the spirit of the constitutional law. The states pressured Congress to pass a new law that states all found ships belong to the state. How that tops the constitution I haven't figured out yet.
Dave, you have to start being honest with yourself. You probably break some law every day, I know I do and I make no beans about it since I am a realist.

You make a good point. It's impossible to pass through life without breaking laws somewhat routinely, at least in this country. And yes, some of them are rather ridiculous and/or have been misused for purposes not originally intended. I break them all the time - sometimes knowingly, sometimes not. The big question is whether or not I'm hurting anyone by breaking them.

Speeding? Jaywalking? Guilty, generally on a daily basis. Am I hurting someone by doing so?

 

[huntsman53]

By Frankn - There is a big difference in knowing and not knowing a cache has been removed.
Mel Fisher found that treasure laden galleon.If he were able to remove the riches without the State finding out, It would have been simple finders/keepers. The state found out and tried to take it all. It caused Fisher a lot of money and grief, but the Supreme Court decided that it all belonged to Fisher. The state spent the rest of Fishers life going after him to get even. He died of cancer before the end.
Now do you see my reason for saying find it , tell no one and vanish?

It was my understanding that they tried to take 25% from him, which might have been fair if they'd had a legal claim on it in the first place. As it turned out, the courts decided otherwise. That's really kind of a special case though and proves my earlier point about everyone having a price...when there are enough zeroes to the right of the number, even a government may do the wrong thing.

Not trying to steer away from the topic of this Thread but wanted to point out a little known or forgotten tidbit about Mel's fight with the State of Florida.

The State of Florida confiscated Mel's finds and held them in a special vault controlled by the State Treasury. When Mel finally won the battle with the State and got possession of the the finds that they had taken, it was found that quite a few items were missing and as far as I know, they were never recovered by Mel or his heirs nor has the State of Florida ever compensated them for these items.


Frank

 

[DocBeav]

For me, it would all comes down to conscience, your sense of right and wrong and if you can live with the consequences (guilt and or financial gain) of whatever actions are taken (or not taken). I LOVE finding valuable items (hell, we all do right?) but it always kind of tugs at me wondering about the person who may have lost/owned it and how they must have felt. Now in this hypothetical case nobody knows, nobody is looking but the question still comes back to, can the finder live with themselves if they keep it and don't share the find with the person who actually would be the true owner (based on what the courts would say if it ever came to that). (Or be sued if the owner DOES find out!)

I'll be posting an example of my feeling on this in a little while once I return something lost for 70 years. I found it and could have kept it, nobody would know or care probably BUT, I wanted to at least make an attempt to find if there was anyone out there who would actually lay claim to it and lo and behold, I DID find someone! The best part of it was the story that goes with it and the happiness it may bring that person. (Hint, 1932 MIT Class Ring...you'll find the post)

In this hypothetical case, I guess it comes down to how much the finder likes and trusts the property owner to maybe share the find. Look how the guy made out who found the "Saxon Hoard" a little while back, it wasn't his property but he and the owner both shared in the profits.

 

[Boatlode]

Then you discovered something of great value that they had NO IDEA was even there for the past 140+ years? What would you do?

1) Buy the property.
2) Sell the gold.
3) Profit $$.