.Well, who wants to bet that the British Museum and the Tullie House Museum in Carlisle will be in the bidding for the stunning-now-reconstructed Roman parade helmet from Crosby Garrett? Along with a few other museums and collectors one suspects. When the hammer falls, who will get it? But then after the temporary export deferral takes effect and trhe buyer has the British people over a barrel, what will the final price be? We've recently seen a number of cases of (upward of course) manipulations of the price of an object once an export licence deferral is in place, forcing the Brits to pay out even more to keep in the country items like this which should never be available for purchase abroad. There was the Coenwulf mancus bought by a US dealer Allan Davisson and then "resold" on paper to a collector before he even had the coin in hand. Then there was the Cambridgeshire Rider, found by Duncan Pangbourn, the price of which almost doubled between its original sale and repurchase by the British people. Such cases (and I believe there are others) well illustrate that our current antiquity protection laws urgently need revision. Current policies are costing the British people a fortune and the money is going into the pockets of those that trade in the heritage.
I say let the Crosby Garrett helmet go abroad. Let it be an easily understood symbol for the people of the British Isles just how their archaeological heritage is being squandered by those who should be protecting it. Furthermore, I hope it goes to the furthest ends of the Earth so that any Brits who want to see it can put themselves for a moment in the place of all those citizens from "antiquities' source countries" who have difficuulty seeing their own region's archaeological heritage because it is hoarded away as (oh-so-culchural) trophies in western museums and personal collections.
Anyway, why does it matter? We have a one-page description of the object with seven zoomable piccies on the PAS database, which is more than most of the millions of archaeological finds hoiked out of archaeological assemblages and whipped away to scattered ephemeral private collections for entertainment and profit get. Why should the Crosby Garrett helmet stay in the country? Let Britain save the money and spend it on something more useful than 'saving for the cvountry' a now-contextless geegaw to be gaped at. Do I hear any objections? Why in this case and not in that of other archaeological artefacts? Because this one is "prettier" than other pieces of Roman military equipment ? What makes an isolated archaeological artefact "important"? (Not a rhetorical question).