Thursday 13 March 2014

He did not have to record it but he did, wonderful!


West Sussex "responsible detectorist" Detectorbloke muses about a coin of Stephen:
On my understanding of the Treasure Act 1996 he did not have to report this item as possible treasure nor did he have to get it recorded.  As you will note from the article it's great that he did as not only did it reveal the monetary value of the coin but also the historical [...] For me personally if one silver coin can be so historically and monetarily valuable it makes one wonder if the Treasure Act 1996 shouldn't be amended to include single coin finds with 10 pct precious metal content [...] 
One wonders just what "responsible" means here, reporting what the law requires you to? How many UK metal detectorists who solemnly intone "I report all my finds" in fact mean only those that they are obliged to report under the Treasure Act? He suggests making all "monetarily valuable" items Treasure, so the tekkies will be assured of their cash rewards for what they do. Then we'll get even more hoiking away rather than less, with a consequent erosion of the archaeological record.

The idea of seventeen years expensive PAS outreach seems to me to have been trying to get people to voluntarily report what they take away, it is odd to see a tekkie suggesting we increease the obligations in order to get more "responsible" behaviour out of them. That tells you something. Watching this PAS?


13 comments:

Detectorbloke said...

Hi

I'm sorry if I was unclear in my post but I was thinking that actually single coins should be reported but then the majority disclaimed (under some sort of accelerated procedure if possible) as treasure so the detectorist is NOT guaranteed a cash reward but the fact that all single coins require at least being looked at as possible treasure means that you will at least get someone other than the finder to look at them.

As I understand it the ex gratia 'reward' for treasure is often far less than the market value and going through the treasure process can take years. I think this would put off people hoiking rather than encourage it.

Perhaps I look at the Crosby-Garrett helment and wonder how on earth that can't be 'treasure'

Paul Barford said...

Well, how do you see that working under the present system? You'd have to have a Coroner's inquest for each of them. So at the moment, the PAS database has 27,174 examples of Medieval coins alone, all silver, so that's 27000+ inquests all at public expense, for WHAT?

Why can't we just have responsible detectorists reporting what they find as a matter of courtesy to the rest of us (from whom they are taken)?

"As I understand it the ex gratia 'reward' for treasure is often far less than the market value

Really? Boo hoo. That's terribly tough, innit? (Sarcasm). You lot want it on a plate, don't you? A lot of trouble is taken to make sure the rewards are realistic (and that all costs the public a lot of money too), so I really do hate hearing this sort of whingeing from detectorists! Get real. In fact, the very fact that you lot are given all this money so it goes into museums instead of having to flog it yourselves on the market is keeping the value UP. If all these items came on the market, huge hoards of coins all of the same date, wave after wave of coins surfacing as each hoard is split up, the market itself would be depressed and the value DROP.

In fact, the value is a good deal more than many deserve, you'd be locked up in prison in my country for doing what those clowns did near Maidstone. How many other UK treasure finds are treated in a similar fashion by their discoverers on known sites where they should not be digging so deep?

"going through the treasure process can take years. I think this would put off people hoiking rather than encourage it."

Nonsense. There is no sign whatsoever that people are being put off hoiking stuff out, the number of Treasure cases has been steadily rising and more and more people are taking up metal detecting because of PAS "outreach".



Detectorbloke said...

Yes I agree there should be responsible detectorists. My blog is just for thinking aloud.

I don't understand why you say 'You lot want it on a plate, don't you'.

I didn't say whether I wanted any changes. Where was I whingeing? I was saying paying less encourages less hoiking as you put it. I never said that was a bad thing did I?

With regards to the 'nonsense' part I was referring to the fact that if someone had to record single coin finds and if then that process would take some time it might not encourage them to take it up in the first place.

Blimey I'm just thinking aloud in what I thought was a moderate tone.

Detectorbloke said...

'Therefore if you are a detectorist and have anything in your finds box that you have not identified then why not take them to your local FLO.'

I did put the above in my post so I agree with the fact detectorists should be responsible (er hence my blog).

As previously stated I was just thinking about some alternatives.

Paul Barford said...

Just thinking aloud"

So why not rename your blog "Detectorist Without a Clue" and then it's clear what you are offering people. OK?

The present title suggests that you have some principles of your own that you want to share as a model for responsible detecting.

Paul Barford said...

"I don't understand why you say 'You lot want it on a plate, don't you'"
No, you probably don't. So look at some metal detecting forums where other tekkies are moaning about the TVC. Then try and imagine how that looks from the outside. Get the picture?

My observation of the forums (which I've been doing for well over a decade) suggests UK metal detectorists in general think the world owes them something, they want everything on a plate and your post says the same thing to me, which is why I commented as much.

Detectorbloke said...

'Detectorist without a clue' - thanks for that. I put a suggestion out there, I'm happy for it to get shot down. That is different to 'not having a clue'.

The idea of my blog was that of discovery, by reading and considering and putting things out there I had hope to invite polite discussion on what would or wouldn't work.

I don't think the world owes me anything but I guess you are reading it with your view that we all do which I understand.

Paul Barford said...

Well, I tell you what. You show me what was not civil in the post I made commenting on your idea and I'll apologise and edit it.

You instead came over here complaining that the TVC gives tekkies an unfair deal, and that kind of talk really gets my back up.

Anonymous said...

The thing is, Detectorbloke, if detectorists were given a reward of 10% of the value of treasure items and stuck in jail if they failed to disclose them it would be fair, nay generous and effective - as everyone except detectorists would agree.

So I'm with Paul, a decade of hearing oiks say they wuz robbed as they weren't given enough money has rendered me unsympathetic to any talk of how they could possibly, in any way, shape or form, be hard done by or have any excuse for how they act.

They are the most unregulated, most subsidised, most praised and luckiest artefact hunters in the world - and yet the most ungrateful!

Detectorbloke said...

Where did I say that the TVC gave Tekkie's an unfair deal? I didn't. I said as I understand it it offers less than market value and takes a long time so would in my opinion discourage detecting. Did I say this was a good or bad thing. No.

In the context of single item recording finds then what i was saying was that if single item finds were possible treasure and as such you had to record them and you may get less than market value then this would discourage detectorists. I never ever whinged or said that they should get more than market value. My idea may well have been a completely daft one but it wasn't a whinge that detectorists should get more, in fact perhaps the opposite.


I believe if you reflected on what I said you would realise you inferred that I was complaining because you think i'm a greedy detectorist.

In fact tekkies should be grateful for getting anything TAX FREE and for living in a country where they can detect with very little controls on what they do.

A lot of detectorists start detecting for purely monetary reasons. I've said that this was my primary reason for 'starting' detecting. I've also said my priorities have probably changed.

I realise what may be considered civil rather depends on the person but presonally I found the below to be less than civil. Again I appreciate that your back was up but please reread what I was trying to say (and I apologise if i did not say it well) and you will see I was not complaining.

Really? Boo hoo. That's terribly tough, innit? (Sarcasm).

So why not rename your blog "Detectorist Without a Clue" and then it's clear what you are offering people. OK? (emphasis on the ok?)

Your response was a bit like when I get an email from my boss which might rankle me on first reading but on taking a pause for breath and re-reading it I see they ain't so bad afterall and that should I have responded in haste I might have regretted it.

Paul Barford said...

"Where did I say that the TVC gave Tekkie's an unfair deal? I didn't. I said as I understand it it offers less than market value and takes a long time "
QED

Paul Barford said...

I pointed out my initial discussion of your idea about increasing the scope of Treasure was civil.

When you started coming back to say tekkies are victimised by the TVC, that just annoyed me and I make no apologies for getting annoyed with that kind of talk.
See what Heritage Action wrote. I agree. UK artefact hunters get the best deal of everything and some of them STILL COMPLAIN.

Detectorbloke said...

No really, I wasn't complaining about the TVC as per above post.

You got annoyed at talk that I wasn't talking.

Ah well I don't think you're going to believe me that I wasn't complaining. If I wanted to complaint I wouldn't be trying so bloody hard to show I wasn't complaining!

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.