Central Searchers metal detectorists claimed yesterday that "their" FLO "is only interested in the good stuff not broken artefacts
and roman grots". Julie Cassidy says this is untrue. She tweets: statement is demonstrably false, esp the part about not recording broken artefacts. Only need to look at database to see thatIt just so happen that the top dozen or so artefacts in the list of those recorded by Ms Cassidy are substantially complete, but we'll take her word for it that the Northampton FLO does not turn away fragments of objects. As for the number of "Roman grots" recorded, the same list shows that in her time with the PAS, she's recorded 595 Late Roman Bronzes and barb-rads (what I assume is meant by the term). Hardly enough to fill a coin zapper's kilogramme bag of "unsorted".
UPDATE 27.04.14:
See now the further developments in the discussion of this topic, Monday, 28 April 2014 "PAS and the Pear-Shaped Database".
.jpg)
2 comments:
To be honest I thought it was common (non spoken) knowledge that flo's have started being very selective about what now gets recorded. I believe the huge backlog of finds to be recorded is the reason, it is very unfortunate that some coins and artefacts do not get a look in due to backlog
In fact, below is a previous blog post of mine with my personal experience of flo's and what I guess they consider a not to interesting item I found.
http://diaryofadetectorist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/flos-whats-you-opinion-of-them.html?m=0
Post a Comment