tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post7578669740660200492..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: UK Metal detectorist 'had no idea' [UPDATED]Paul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-36968414440891062482019-06-18T08:26:53.544-07:002019-06-18T08:26:53.544-07:00I think the above well illustrates the differing p...I think the above well illustrates the differing priorities here, Mr Finch sees the "important" thing as whether the bloke in the picture was wearing a leafy headdress or the spiky one, whereas the fact that the find context is lost probably means it "was not important" and therefore its not so much of an issue for him that we do not know it it because it was hoiked by a collector (who was not even interested enough in the picture to research it). <br />As for the suggestion of finders of hoiked artefacts being fined under the british system for not showing the picture to somebody else (the de rigeur claptrap about "the British system [...] is considerably better than any other in Europe or elsewhere, and it is also VERY FAIR to honest and correct finders"), I would suggest that Mr leafy-versus-spiky really has not grasped the essence of that "British system" (I use the latter term loosely - both parts). Mr Finch goes on "No metal detector user should be allowed to claim ignorance of the law", and what "law" is that? Maybe Mr Finch could explain what law he sees as being broken here? ("reporting's voluntry innit M8") <br /><br />The rest about a leaflet is pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps Mr Finch is one of those individuals that obsessively reads the entire contents of the little wadges of tightly-folded paper that comes with every packet of pills he buys? That might explain why he believes in the efficacy of "explanatory leaflets" for metal detectorists - many of whom it seems to me from their forums seem to have trouble coping with texts longer than eight sentences. Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-38825125762013940302019-06-18T07:07:07.331-07:002019-06-18T07:07:07.331-07:00Do try to be accurate: this is NOT an antoninianus...Do try to be accurate: this is NOT an antoninianus, it is a DENARIUS. It is easy to tell them apart: on denarii the emperor wears a laurel wreath, while on antoniniani he wears a radiate crown. Silver denarii of Carausius are massively rarer than copper/bronze antoniniani. <br />The fact that the find context of this coin is irretrievably lost is sad, but if it was only a casual loss its only interest would be the find spot itself. But we don't know, do we?<br />However, why not suggest that if some idiot finds an item and only reports it 10 YEARS LATER, he should be heavily fined for not promptly showing it to a finds officer. While you would argue that the British system is imperfect, it is considerably better than any other in Europe or elsewhere, and it is also VERY FAIR to honest and correct finders. No metal detector user should be allowed to claim ignorance of the law. By the way, are all metal detectors, whether new or used, required to be accompanied by a written, official explanation of the laws relating to their use, and the reporting requirements for anything found using them? If that was done anyone NOT reporting finds could - and should - be prosecuted for non-compliance. And so would anyone selling such a machine without the official notice. Duncan Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321206870710752587noreply@blogger.com