"Early-Mid 19th Century Sickle"

[BeccaRah]

Not Available

 

[against the wind]

Very interesting find and post(s),,
I have never found a sickle but I can honestly say ,, Now I'm Ready,, lol

 

[Got_4by4]

An inquiry regarding the sickle with the CT Archeology Association yielded this response:
Dear Rebecca, ............

SO... Yeah I'm not PUTTING IT BACK

How RUDE! Of course you ARE putting it back.
Otherwise you are encouraging breaking the rules to get what YOU want.

You have no respect for the knowledge of someone who identified it for you.
AND no respect for the law!?

No wonder I can't get enough permissions! They probably tripped in a hole
left by someone else, who like you could care less.

I AM OFFENDED! DO THE RIGHT THING!

 

[Dirtwisher]

That thing would have rusted to nothing in another 100 yrs. Good on ya for finding something that sparked some serious interest in that piece by you and many others. I did ask the historical commission in my town if I could hunt town land and my request was presented during their meeting and approved. They just said, "be neat". So I guess I lucked out with that, but if they said no I would have been kicking my own ass for doing so.

 

[CRUSADER]

G
Oh that's so awesome. I still suspect that my town would lean that way, even if the state archeologist would not. I'll be a little gun-shy for a while, but if I gain some confidence, I'll consider asking the town. You're giving me hope there. Have fun!

It can sometimes take years, but I would encourage you to find the right minded officials in your town and gain the permission. That way we don't continue the them/us attitude & start to build more bridges. The more of us that work with them, the weaker their arguement becomes. The more we work against them the stronger their arguement becomes & the more likely the Laws will turn against you all in a much heavier way. Once Laws have changed, the Detecting groups will have very little sway ( I know of no organisation that give money to your political parties?) to influence them back the other way. I'm proud of our Laws & they are a partnership between the Archies & the Detectorists & both parties benefit. Mostly them (& the countries historial records), but its us that have 'free rein'.

 

[Erik in NJ]

It goes like this,woods with no signs saying no trespassing,im in like Flynn..

~Blaze~

Just because there is no sign posted doesn't mean you are not trespassing on someone's property and detecting without permission. I think this is bad advice to give a newbie and in general not a good idea to post this on a public forum--people opposed to the hobby Google these sorts of comments and use them against the detecting community as a whole.

To the OP (BeccaRah): either detect on public property where detecting is allowed or if it's privately owned property--get permission first.

 

[Erik in NJ]

To the OP (BeccaRah): either detect on public property where detecting is allowed or if it's privately owned property--get permission first.

Yeah - I'm obviously leaning that way. It's been fun for a time, but if it's over it's over. I'm more in love with being out there than metal detecting. It's not so far from going for a walk with a cellphone in your hand.[/QUOTE]

If it's town owned land then you may be OK. State and Federal lands don't allow detecting and your machine can be confiscated and you could be forced to pay a fine. The main point I was trying to make was not to just walk into someone's woods and start detecting just because it's not marked private property--obviously get the land owner's permission first.