It has been said that the PAS works best in Norfolk, where the idea started. It is not even working properly there either as this comment on a metal detecting forum near you makes clear:
"FLO -we currently do not have one visiting and instead have to offer a courier service for the top 20 recordable finds, to Gressenhall Museum. They then return as one lot two months later."This begs the question how many other artefacts are found and simply kept by the artefact hunter with no record being made because he cannot be bothered himself to meet the liaison officer face to face (surely a contradiction of what the PAS was set up to do in the first place). In this situation, who decides which 20 would be 'top' for the FLO and what happens to the rest? It should be the PAS who decide on archaeological (not a collector's) criteria what what to record and not delegate the decision to anonymous unqualified hoikers. How much cultural loss does this amount to? Are the resulting 'data' archaeological data about the sites exploited by these collectors? (In case anyone is in doubt: No, obviously not).
So finds are recorded by collectors only when the mountain comes to Mehmet, the latter being unable to get up off his fat metal detecting backside and visit the FLO?