Paul Barford

Ummm, any artefacts in a site are the property of the landowner, whether or not they know they've got them. If you read the article, you will see the "metal detectorist" found the land owners a long time AFTER having made the find, so he was detecting and digging there (and taking property from the site) without the prior permission of the landowner or their agent. Technically he was therefore trespassing (and indeed technically committing theft) and is therefore lucky he got anything at all. "Metal detectorists" are obliged to ask permission from the landowner, even on beaches, the wise "detectorist" gets a written agreement which will cover such things as splitting the proceeds of any sale. Paul Barford

The "edit" button's disappeared.... The Coenwulf coin was found by a metal detectorist and taken to Spink's who then passed it on to the BM for examination and confirmation that it was what it seemed to be. It therefore had not come under the Treasure Act. http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signa...oinage0106a.htm http://www.thecomet.net/content/comet/news...3A04%3A58%3A090 I hope this answers your question. Paul Barford

Hi, I guess the answer is in human nature, after your workshop's struck its 2333rd scyphate coin in a week and if your supervisor's not watching, you might be tempted to turn out as many rough and ready ones as you can get away with... and if people used them (as the wear on them shows they did) and the boss did not mind, presumably there was no incentive to do a better job. They presumably had a quota to turn out in a certain period and I bet as in any job these days, they were understaffed and had their work cut out to fill that quota. Maybe the shoddy coins were a frm of "protest"? :>) Very probably the specialist die cutting would not have been done by the burly blokes with the huge hammer that struck them. Paul Barford

Perhaps I should have explained, the cut-off point for the artefacts should be 'older than 300 years ago' so that's stuff of 1700 or earlier. The later stuff should not be there!! Of course what goes on the database is what metal detectorists are bringing along, so if they dont take the post-med coins home with them after detecting, then they wont be recorded by the PAS. The entries should be vetted, but I think they are having a bit of trouble getting round to them all. You can report the error to the administrators. Of course the point is the basic record is there, tweaking it can always be done later, building on that. I'll get back to you later on the Coenwulf. Paul Barford

Rob, have a look at a summary of the Treasure Act of 1996 http://www.finds.org.uk/treasure/treasure_summary.php and see for yourself. You dont have to report single coins as 'Treasure' Its not called "treasure trove" any more. As you can see, you have 14 days to report it. You can report it later too, but then you could be forfeiting the reward. As for the database, well, there is such a thing, the Portable Antiquities Database, which costs you all millions of pounds to run, and its mostly for the benefit of artefact hunters like the guys above. The point I was making in the Britarch post is that its vastly underused by the very people who should be supplying us all with information about the things they dig up and take away. Please spread the message about it, the more people that hear of it, the more useful it can become as a resource for study, education and protection of our heritage. Paul Barford PAS website: http://www.finds.org.uk/ the database http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/hms/home.php?publiclogin=1 warning, the search facility is notorious for not being terribly - shall we say - user friendly. The word "clunky" comes to mind too. There is a guide how to use it on the main webpage which may be useful to start with. There's also going to be a Roman and medieval coin 'gallery', both under construction, and advice on conservation of finds, and also buying artefacts that might be interesting for members of this forum.

Precisely, that is exactly what the problem is. I suppose building on what you said, we have the technology to find out much, but some peope who have their hands on it want the freedom to use it in a fairly 'Victorian' manner.... while convincing the rest of the world that they are all using it 'responsibly'. Anyway, like it said on the box, I was interested in "charting effects of metal detector use on coin availability", i.e. a purely numismatic question addresssed to a numismatic discussion forum. There are other places on the internet where metal detectorists can get shirty or threaten/warn their critics and complain they are "misunderstood". Paul Barford

I always assumed that it was to make the very thin flans seem 'bulkier' and easier to pick up. When you are handling them in multiples, its quite natural to hold handfuls of them nested one in the other, admittedly I've never tried stacking any, but is it really as impractical as you say (for example just in tens)? They would be easier surely to move around the bargaining table in nested stacks of ten for example. Obviously somebody saw some sense in it, as Early Medieval Bulgarian coins also were produced on the same pattern and you see the same idea re-emerge with the Early Medieval one-sided 'bracteate' coinage of Poland and the Teutonic Order state (which were REALLY thin flans - silver, but I would have thought unstackable). I guess in economies where some of the coins in circulation were cut silver, you would be foolish just to thrust your hand blindly into a moneybag anyway!! Possibly they handled coins a little differently to us. Ibn Fadlan writing of the markets of central Europe in the tenth century talks of pieces of cloth which were used as a medium of exchange, though the discovery of hoards of hacksilver with remnants of cloth wrapping in the same area suggests that weighed amounts of silver could habve been pre-packaged and handled like that in those economies at least. Just some loose thoughts arising from your query. Paul Barford

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin...&F=P&S=&P=42385 No, there was some pruning of another area of the British Archaeology Discussion List archives this morning. This link should work. Paul Barford

Well, the truth is indeed "none" (sic), I don't as it happens. How curious, I post a query for a simple piece of information from British numismatists about fluctuations in supply of a British coin type over a couple of decades, and this happens. A "smithers" a "Jerry Morris" and a "Guest" start some nonsense. Yes, including it would seem those that think its a good idea to use numismatic discussion lists to make in public semi-literate threatening comments. Actually quite a few metal detector users have "found" me, I had one here at home not three weeks ago when we were discussing perfectly amicably battlefield detecting. But yes, not a few other "metal detectorists" have engaged in more or less threatening behaviour instead of rational presentation of their views. Draw your own conclusions. As for the article in the Independent, numismatists who might not have been following the issues that closely can read a comment on it here: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin...&F=P&S=&P=42967 which may shed a little light on the background to my concerns, and very probably why these three gentlemen are so concerned to shut up and shut out any such an analysis of the realities behind the 'spin' about their hobby (in the process disrupting your discussion list by such behaviour). Any further help with fluctuations in sceatta prices would be much appreciated. Paul Barford

Thanks to all for the comments so far. The first problem is that a 1972 pound is not the same as a 2006 one. Thirty quid would go much further in those days than it would today, so although the number is the same, the coin in relative terms (ie compared with other commodities, food, petrol, beer whatever) is more expensive at the old price.... The second comment is that I have a 1978 Seaby's catalogue and the porcupine (the 'early' type numbered there 786) is listed as £55 (with prices for the other types listed between £50 and £70), so something happened to their price between 1972 and 1978 before dropping. Incidentally the same catalogue has an editorial discussing the effects of metal detectorist finds on the market. Can anyone fill in the gaps with their old catalogues? Thanks Paul Barford

Thanks 'Scottishmoney', maybe not terribly "commonly" found, but you would have to agree they are more available to collectors now than they were in (say) the 1960s due to the use of this technology for finding them. http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showcat.p...&cat=91&ppuser= http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/search/ind...set=1&expand=24, ...search for "sceat' in "coins" It was the effect of increasing availability to collectors I wanted to explore with the use of forum member's knowledge of price fluctuations. As I say, I'd be interested also in comments about increase in availability of other types of coins too, especially if it can in some way be "quantified". Thanks. Paul Barford

Hello Predecimal forum members. I have perhaps an unusual ... but I hope interesting .... query for forum members with old back numbers of auction and dealers’ catalogues. Is anyone able to supply information how the price of "Porcupine" sceattas (in "fine" condition) would have changed between 1967 (say) and 2006/7? I would like if possible to produce a graph of this. In particular I am interested in plotting any fluctuations in the 1970s and 1980s. I am interested in the effects of metal detecting on the number of old coins available on the market. Looking at price seems a possible way to approach this. I chose sceattas as they are relatively small that they would be difficult to find as 'chance' finds but their numbers did increase (and prices drop) with the advent of the metal detector. For this reason they would be a good index of the effect I want to look at. If anyone has any other information on the effect of the use of metal detectors on the availability to collectors of other types of British coin (Celtic, Roman, or hammered) I'd be grateful to hear. Finally (?) there is a slight problem with the effects of inflation over these 40 years on the interpretation of these prices, how to calibrate for that? Any ideas? Many thanks in advance for any help you can give. Paul Barford