Should we report treasure that we find?

[CRUSADER]

I can completely understand the government's side in that situation. If an object is exceedingly rare and of great historical significance to a particular country, then that country's government should do what it can to keep the item in that country and make a fair settlement with the finder, which I believe is exactly what happened in this instance.

It is sad for the buyer, but it would have gone into a private collection maybe lost forever.

Best-Mike

Very true, if we as a country can't protect the only known example of a coin leaving, then what hope do we have of keeping our heritage. The buyer knew the Law before he purchased it (& if he didn't then he should have done his homework before spending that amount of money), so no surprises when the BM blocked such an important historical piece. I totally agree with the action taken, I only wish they had out bid him & got it cheaper.

 

[Silver Searcher]

I can completely understand the government's side in that situation. If an object is exceedingly rare and of great historical significance to a particular country, then that country's government should do what it can to keep the item in that country and make a fair settlement with the finder, which I believe is exactly what happened in this instance.

It is sad for the buyer, but it would have gone into a private collection maybe lost forever.

Best-Mike

Very true, if we as a country can't protect the only known example of a coin leaving, then what hope do we have of keeping our heritage. The buyer knew the Law before he purchased it (& if he didn't then he should have done his homework before spending that amount of money), so no surprises when the BM blocked such an important historical piece. I totally agree with the action taken, I only wish they had out bid him & got it cheaper.

Your half right it should never had gone to auction in the first place, but typical of the Bm offering the finder a grossly undervaluation of the coin, if they had offered a better price , then they might have saved on the huge £300 and odd thousand that they ended up paying.

 

[gollum]

I can completely understand the government's side in that situation. If an object is exceedingly rare and of great historical significance to a particular country, then that country's government should do what it can to keep the item in that country and make a fair settlement with the finder, which I believe is exactly what happened in this instance.

It is sad for the buyer, but it would have gone into a private collection maybe lost forever.

Best-Mike

Very true, if we as a country can't protect the only known example of a coin leaving, then what hope do we have of keeping our heritage. The buyer knew the Law before he purchased it (& if he didn't then he should have done his homework before spending that amount of money), so no surprises when the BM blocked such an important historical piece. I totally agree with the action taken, I only wish they had out bid him & got it cheaper.

Your half right it should never had gone to auction in the first place, but typical of the Bm offering the finder a grossly undervaluation of the coin, if they had offered a better price , then they might have saved on the huge £300 and odd thousand that they ended up paying.

If I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I am), my understanding of UK Treasure Trove is that if the finder believes that Government Valuation is too low, then an independent evaluation can be conducted at the finder's expense.

I also agree that in this case, the coin should have never gone to auction. The government should have delayed the sale as this could be considered a national treasure, then compensate the finder for the delay while they get their money together, and pay them a fair price.

Best-Mike

 

[Silver Searcher]

This is what happens with the Treasure act, you find something that falls under the act, you report the find to the local FLO officer,(Finds Liason Officer) he or she takes the find to the BM, then there is a inquest at court, were it's decided weather it's Treasure.
The BM looks at the find, and if it's not interested offers it around to outher Mueums to see if they would like to acquire it, if there is no interest, then the find is returned to the finder, as long as there is no objection from the land owner(they write to both parties)
If the BM or another Museum express there interest in acquiring the find, a hearing is arranged with the independant valuation commitee, the finder can submit his own valuations, that he has got through experts in the field of the find.
If the finder doesn't agree to the commitee's valuation, he or she can refuse, and the whole process of the valuation is done again, this can take years, and most except the findings of the first sitting, just to avoid further delays.
I know I waited 2 Years.

SS

 

[gollum]

This is what happens with the Treasure act, you find something that falls under the act, you report the find to the local FLO officer,(Finds Liason Officer) he or she takes the find to the BM, then there is a inquest at court, were it's decided weather it's Treasure.
The BM looks at the find, and if it's not interested offers it around to outher Mueums to see if they would like to acquire it, if there is no interest, then the find is returned to the finder, as long as there is no objection from the land owner(they write to both parties)
If the BM or another Museum express there interest in acquiring the find, a hearing is arranged with the independant valuation commitee, the finder can submit his own valuations, that he has got through experts in the field of the find.
If the finder doesn't agree to the commitee's valuation, he or she can refuse, and the whole process of the valuation is done again, this can take years, and most except the findings of the first sitting, just to avoid further delays.
I know I waited 2 Years.

SS

I guess it's just like trading in your old car when you buy a new one. The dealer will give you less than if you sell it yourself, but usually the price difference is not worth all the hassle of selling it yourself. HAHAHA

Best-Mike

 

[CRUSADER]

I can completely understand the government's side in that situation. If an object is exceedingly rare and of great historical significance to a particular country, then that country's government should do what it can to keep the item in that country and make a fair settlement with the finder, which I believe is exactly what happened in this instance.

It is sad for the buyer, but it would have gone into a private collection maybe lost forever.

Best-Mike

Very true, if we as a country can't protect the only known example of a coin leaving, then what hope do we have of keeping our heritage. The buyer knew the Law before he purchased it (& if he didn't then he should have done his homework before spending that amount of money), so no surprises when the BM blocked such an important historical piece. I totally agree with the action taken, I only wish they had out bid him & got it cheaper.

Your half right it should never had gone to auction in the first place, but typical of the Bm offering the finder a grossly undervaluation of the coin, if they had offered a better price , then they might have saved on the huge £300 and odd thousand that they ended up paying.

If I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I am), my understanding of UK Treasure Trove is that if the finder believes that Government Valuation is too low, then an independent evaluation can be conducted at the finder's expense.

I also agree that in this case, the coin should have never gone to auction. The government should have delayed the sale as this could be considered a national treasure, then compensate the finder for the delay while they get their money together, and pay them a fair price.

Best-Mike

Problem the BM had was it was not a Treasure under the terms of the Act & the finder could do as he wished.

 

[gollum]

I see where the problem was. As with any law passed ANYWHERE there will, from time to time, be things turning up that don't fit neatly into any category originally thought of at the time the law was being written. Also, as times change, so do circumstances that the original law could in no way have taken into consideration. When these thing occur, we have two choices;

1. Deal with the situations on a case by case basis to lay the groundwork for future legal decisions.

2. Change the original law to account for the new circumstances. The problem with this one is that the original law becomes bloated and at some point ceases to lose its' original intent (sort of like what has happened to parts of our Constitution).

Best-Mike

 

[diggummup]

Seriously though,

When it comes to Treasure Hunting, England has the absolute best Treasure Trove Laws on Earth! While it DOES force people to turn in virtually everything they find, they will get top dollar for it!

If it is not deemed of historical value, they can have it back, and sell it at their leisure or keep it.

If it IS deemed of historical value, the government assesses the value of the object. If the finder doesn't agree with the assessed value, they can have an independent third party assess it. Then museums can bid on it.

As long as its' above board and the finder is not getting ripped off (like in the US), it promotes people turning in nice finds. As it is currently in the US, many finds that are easy to remove are done so secretly, and many things' historical values are lost. Our government is too greedy, and in being so greedy they are loosing out on a lot. How does the old saying go? The tighter you squeeze your fist around something, the more of it leaks between your fingers.

Best-Mike

I agree, if found in the U.K. then yes, report it. If found in the U.S. keep your mouth shut or you'll lose it !!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well gee, if you're all trying to stay law-abiding in this regard, you're probably in the wrong hobby

Don't y'all know there's lost and found laws in every state, that say that when you find something over a certain value, you are supposed to turn it in to the police? Then if no one claims it in 90 days, you get to come retrieve it. In CA, here's the code, cut & pasted here:

§ 2080. Duties of finder

Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.

CREDIT(S)

(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1998, c. 752 (S.B.1785), § 9.)



§ 2080.1. Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges

(a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:

(1) From what and how it was saved.

(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.

(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.

(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.



CREDIT(S)

(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3. Amended by Stats.1992, c. 138 (A.B.2457), § 1.)



§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner

If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.



CREDIT(S)

(Added by Stats.1967, c. 1512, p. 3601, § 3.)



§ 2080.3. Advertisement; payment of cost; vesting of title in finder

(a) If the reported value of the property is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more and no owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the property within 90 days, the police department or sheriff's department shall cause notice of the property to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. If, after seven days following the first publication of the notice, no owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the property and the person who found or saved the property pays the cost of the publication, the title shall vest in the person who found or saved the property unless the property was found in the course of employment by an employee of any public agency, in which case the property shall be sold at public auction. Title to the property shall not vest in the person who found or saved the property or in the successful bidder at the public auction unless the cost of publication is first paid to the city, county, or city and county whose police or sheriff's department caused the notice to be published.

(b) If the reported value of the property is less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and no owner appears and proves his or her ownership of the property within 90 days, the title shall vest in the person who found or saved the property, unless the property was found in the course of employment by an employee of any public agency, in which case the property shall be sold at public auction.

Google your own state, and I'm sure it's something similar. And notice that the law makes no distinction on when YOU THINK something was lost. Ie.: lost 100 yrs. ago, verses 1 day ago. And notice it doesn't clarify how things are valued. Ie.: is a 1909 s VDB cent worth 1 cent, or hundreds of dollars? Believe me, if the coin collector who lost it in a sandbox wanted to nail you for not returning his collectible coin, your argument before a judge that "it's only worth 1 cent" would fail. You would be forced to return it to the coin-collector, and you would be chided for not following lost and found laws. And you can't claim that "it was deep, thus it must've been lost 100 yrs. ago", because perhaps a gopher put it deep? Heck, I got a $20 gold piece from the 1870s on the beach after a storm one time. How do I know whether it fell out of a bezzle the day before (I was finding clad, along with the silver, that day anyhow)?

Or put it this way: If you find a barber or seated dime in the public park, in your town, that perhaps has absolutely no restrictions on metal detecting. Try this: Take that seated or barber dime, walk in to city hall, go up to the receptionist, and say "Hi, I found this in the city park. Is it ok for me to keep it? I might put it on ebay, thus en-riching myself at the city's expense. Just wanted to make sure you, or the city museum, had no problem with this, since it came from city land. Is this ok?" And see what they say!

Same with gold rings we find on the beach: You are all in violation (assuming they go over a stated amount in your particular state) if you keep them, before first going through the 90 process at the police station. Oh, and to add to the misery: In CA, if the police post the lost & found in the classified section (for if it goes over $250 value, they are required to publish in a newspaper for potential claimers to "come describe your item"), guess who pays for the cost of the notice of publication in the paper, if no one comes to claim it?? You do! Yup, if you want the item back, you have to pay for that publication cost.

So if someone really thinks they can be totally above board, and obey all laws regarding these matters, it appears that unless they want to hunt clad, they are in the wrong hobby.

 

[Silver Searcher]

I see where the problem was. As with any law passed ANYWHERE there will, from time to time, be things turning up that don't fit neatly into any category originally thought of at the time the law was being written. Also, as times change, so do circumstances that the original law could in no way have taken into consideration. When these thing occur, we have two choices;

1. Deal with the situations on a case by case basis to lay the groundwork for future legal decisions.

2. Change the original law to account for the new circumstances. The problem with this one is that the original law becomes bloated and at some point ceases to lose its' original intent (sort of like what has happened to parts of our Constitution).

Best-Mike

You missed one Mike

No3...Make sure that the finder is offered the fair Market value for the find.


Which in the case of the Gold coin, he wasn't.

SS

 

[gollum]

I see where the problem was. As with any law passed ANYWHERE there will, from time to time, be things turning up that don't fit neatly into any category originally thought of at the time the law was being written. Also, as times change, so do circumstances that the original law could in no way have taken into consideration. When these thing occur, we have two choices;

1. Deal with the situations on a case by case basis to lay the groundwork for future legal decisions.

2. Change the original law to account for the new circumstances. The problem with this one is that the original law becomes bloated and at some point ceases to lose its' original intent (sort of like what has happened to parts of our Constitution).

Best-Mike

You missed one Mike

No3...Make sure that the finder is offered the fair Market value for the find.


Which in the case of the Gold coin, he wasn't.

SS

No, that would be a requirement in ANY case. I was dealing strictly with the legal aspects of encountering a situation that was not specifically covered in the original law.

Best-Mike

 

[Silver Searcher]

I see where the problem was. As with any law passed ANYWHERE there will, from time to time, be things turning up that don't fit neatly into any category originally thought of at the time the law was being written. Also, as times change, so do circumstances that the original law could in no way have taken into consideration. When these thing occur, we have two choices;

1. Deal with the situations on a case by case basis to lay the groundwork for future legal decisions.

2. Change the original law to account for the new circumstances. The problem with this one is that the original law becomes bloated and at some point ceases to lose its' original intent (sort of like what has happened to parts of our Constitution).

Best-Mike

You missed one Mike

No3...Make sure that the finder is offered the fair Market value for the find.


Which in the case of the Gold coin, he wasn't.

SS

No, that would be a requirement in ANY case. I was dealing strictly with the legal aspects of encountering a situation that was not specifically covered in the original law.

Best-Mike

If we are still talking about the Saxon Gold coin, to my understanding there was no legal issue at all the guy could literally sell the coin to whom he pleased, and if he had.. he would have broken no laws.
What I can not understand is how a unique coin like this was allowed to go to a open auction in the first place.
The BM must have made a totally unacceptable offer to the finder, which they have done on numerous occasions in the past, which makes the Treasure act a farce, and less and less people in the future will report finds.

SS

 

[gollum]

I see where the problem was. As with any law passed ANYWHERE there will, from time to time, be things turning up that don't fit neatly into any category originally thought of at the time the law was being written. Also, as times change, so do circumstances that the original law could in no way have taken into consideration. When these thing occur, we have two choices;

1. Deal with the situations on a case by case basis to lay the groundwork for future legal decisions.

2. Change the original law to account for the new circumstances. The problem with this one is that the original law becomes bloated and at some point ceases to lose its' original intent (sort of like what has happened to parts of our Constitution).

Best-Mike

You missed one Mike

No3...Make sure that the finder is offered the fair Market value for the find.


Which in the case of the Gold coin, he wasn't.

SS

No, that would be a requirement in ANY case. I was dealing strictly with the legal aspects of encountering a situation that was not specifically covered in the original law.

Best-Mike

If we are still talking about the Saxon Gold coin, to my understanding there was no legal issue at all the guy could literally sell the coin to whom he pleased, and if he had.. he would have broken no laws.
What I can not understand is how a unique coin like this was allowed to go to a open auction in the first place.
The BM must have made a totally unacceptable offer to the finder, which they have done on numerous occasions in the past, which makes the Treasure act a farce, and less and less people in the future will report finds.

SS

Maybe you didn't quite catch what I was trying to say:

Whether it is the UK Treasure Trove Laws, The United States Constitution, The Treaty of Versailles, The Patriot Act, Copyright Law, International Deep Sea Salvage Law, or whatever, makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

There will ALWAYS be things that were not thought of when the laws are being written. Whether because of technological advances or the fact that you can't provide for EVERY SINGLE possibility of EVERY SINGLE situation in every law. In order to do so, a law about stopping at red lights would have to be a million pages in length. The Saxon Penny is just such an example. Under normal circumstances, such a coin would not fall under the description of a National Treasure or be an item of Historic Significance. After all, how could your lawmakers provide for a coin that was previously not known to exist? IMPOSSIBLE!

TECHNICALLY, the finder had every right to sell it in any way he deemed suitable to his purposes. Once the British Gov decided that the coin was of very high historical significance (and governments ALWAYS move at a slow pace), they made the call to keep it in country. They did whatever it took to preserve British National Heritage. Because they moved at such a slow pace initially, they wound up spending far more than if they would have before.

In retrospect, everything worked out very well for everybody but the poor sod who bought the coin at auction. The finder wound up getting FAR more than he had hoped and the United Kingdom gets to keep and display the only known example of an historic coin. So, while the Saxon Penny was a circumstance that was not thought of when the British Treasure Trove Laws were being written, we now have (what we call in the United States) Case Law. Case Law is something that, while it may not have been included in the original written law, the actions of the government in this CASE, set a precedent for future situations like this. So, the next time a solitary example of something is found that does not fit under Treasure Trove Laws, the British Government can act faster because of what occurred with the Saxon Penny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

............... and no, I'm not an attorney. HAHAHA

If you don't get that, I cannot explain it any clearer.

Best-Mike

 

[dogpound]

i say " finders keepers"

 

[Silver Searcher]

Thank you for your explanation Mike

But at the end of the day it was all handled badly, no matter what you think. As I understand it, the Buyer Allan Davisson bought the coin at auction out bidding the BM..£230,000 he paid, the BM had the Government slap a export ban on the coin.
The BM then had to raise another £100,000 or so, I think this took quite a while, if the Government was that concerned about the coin going abroad, why didn't they cough up the money, after all it is part of out Heritage, and God knows we pay enough Taxes. I wonder how many potential over seas buyers will be put of by this because it could happen with anything British, Painting, Antique anything.
I don't know wether MR Davisson new he wouldn't get a export license for it or not, but I bet the BM new that if there bid was unsuccessful, they would get the export ban.

The question was should we report Treasure that we find, this cropped up and the discussion has been very interesting but for me.... the reporting of Treasure in the UK has huge flaws.
Certain criteria should be taken out, local FLO officers should be able to make on the spot recommendations wether or not a item goes through the act, (example Fragments of Artifacts of Gold or Silver over 3 hundred years of age)

There are people handing in pieces of Roman rings, and Brooches that will only be sent back, but this clogs up the system for the more important finds.

Been nice talking to you

SS

 

[gollum]

HAHAHA

When have you ever seen the government (yours or ours) handle things correctly the first time? Quite often it takes several times, millions of dollars, and public embarrassment, then they still screw things up.

Best-Mike

 

[BuffaloBob]

No.

 

[Chocadog]

You guys over there have "Gov't controlled everything". Gov't controlled.......Health care........this "so called" treasure law........and my personal favorite----NO FIREARMS. Now only the criminals have guns. AWESOME.............First time I've ever seen a so- called Democracy, use a "Socialist" (Communist), style of government. How's it workin' out for ya! I guess this way of governing is why our four-fathers left. I really shouldn't laugh,(but I can't help it), as some of these "DIMWITS" that run our country, want to institute some of these exact same things. Kinda nice to have a system of checks and balances where no one agency, or branch of government can obtain too much power. Thank God for "The Bill of Rights" and our Constitution.

You forgot to mention our poor dental hygeine, stupid accents, warm beer, how foggy London is, and probably a few more misconceptions...

When I first moved to London, it did rain every day for three weeks! hahaa

we like the rain, it keeps out the foreigner's

LOL, most folks in the UK are foreigners, I was in a part of London last year and coud not find the first English Person there. The beer is still the best in the world though

 

[gollum]

You guys over there have "Gov't controlled everything". Gov't controlled.......Health care........this "so called" treasure law........and my personal favorite----NO FIREARMS. Now only the criminals have guns. AWESOME.............First time I've ever seen a so- called Democracy, use a "Socialist" (Communist), style of government. How's it workin' out for ya! I guess this way of governing is why our four-fathers left. I really shouldn't laugh,(but I can't help it), as some of these "DIMWITS" that run our country, want to institute some of these exact same things. Kinda nice to have a system of checks and balances where no one agency, or branch of government can obtain too much power. Thank God for "The Bill of Rights" and our Constitution.

You forgot to mention our poor dental hygeine, stupid accents, warm beer, how foggy London is, and probably a few more misconceptions...

When I first moved to London, it did rain every day for three weeks! hahaa

we like the rain, it keeps out the foreigner's

LOL, most folks in the UK are foreigners, I was in a part of London last year and coud not find the first English Person there. The beer is still the best in the world though

Not when you drink it warm! UGH! lol