Grabby Detectorists Get it Wrong

 Readers may remember the fuss that a Treasure Hunter kicked up because he thought he was "not getting enough" for his barely-displayable hoard of twenty pieces of scrap silver. Especially he moans when he splits it three ways, between the two finders and the landowner.

 so, today we received the valuation for our 20 piece, 1kg,1100 year old viking hoard of hack silver. Split 3 ways between myself, daniel and the land owner.... £400 each I honestly am gutted. We dont do it for the money but lets be honest, there is no wonder so many finds go unrecorded to the flo. We knew the BM would rip us off but we didnt expect to be stripped naked and well and truely screwed by them.

It seems that UK metal detectorists do not always know their Treasure Act and associated documents. If they did they'd know it will be split two ways:

73. If it is established that the permission to enter the land was subject to the finder and occupier and/or the landowner agreeing to share any reward, the Secretary of State will be prepared to apportion the reward with reference to the agreement.

77. If there is more than one finder that residual part of the reward to which they are entitled (after the deduction of the portion due to the landowner) will normally be paid to them in equal proportions except where there is an agreement to the contrary.

 One third shares would only arise if the finds agreement specified finder(s) two thirds/ farmer one third, which would be outrageous and unlikely. The architects of the Treasure Code, being rational and fair minded, would have intended 50%, 25% and 25% but the hoiker, anxious to share with his mate, has mistakenly inferred it will be thirds all round (and the landowner will be short-changed). In a metal detecting forum thread ten pages long, not a single member has pointed this out.

Hat tip to Farmer Silas Brown who is livid
at the cheek of these reward-grabbing-bandits