Availability of sceattas etc

[Rob 3,002]

There are clearly two sides to the discussion. I don't use a metal detector, but I can sympathise to some extent with those who do not report finds.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that if for example I found a William 3rd 1st bust shilling, under the rules of treasure trove (over 300 years old and made of silver or gold) I should report it notwithstanding the fact that they are as common as muck in dire grade and common even in high grade. It would be unlikely to be claimed by a museum and presumably handed back to me. If it was a rare variety there is a possibility it would be retained however remote this may be. I therefore would not be able to incorporate it into my collection.

I collect coins because I have a great deal of interest in them from both a numismatic research point of view to that of a simple collector who likes to have an example of as many types as possible. This desire to form and expand a collection is quite strong for many people. If not, they may as well buy a copy of Spink and tick them off as they see an example. Call it trainspotting with a difference. It's the ability to hold history in your hands that frequently drives a collection. If a find is reported and acquired by a museum, serious high value rarities such as the Coenwulf mancus apart, most of these disappear from the public view indefinitely and nobody sees them because nobody knows they are there. An example. Peck listed the provenances of all the entries in his book and so we know which pieces are in the BM and could therefore see them if we want to. But how many people know what other items are held in the BM? There is no list available to outsiders of their inventory or that of any other museum. These items are to all intents and purposes "lost".

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of recording all finds, but this information needs to be notifiable and available on a database accessible to all and preferably with images. The potential scale of such a project will ensure it never happens. The need to follow a reporting procedure about which I know little and about which I'm certain many people are similarly in the dark should also ensure that most finds remain unreported. Deciphering the BM website, it seems you should report any find to the local coroner who will then adjudicate. If I find a coin in Bridlington on a Saturday, I am certain the local coroner's office will not be open (or may not even be in Bridlington?). Do I therefore have to make another 200 mile round trip to notify him during midweek at my expense? This is never going to happen for single small items. Better that it be notified by letter or other communication such as email with attached image. The item could then be added to the database and should any museum show interest or take it, the final destination could be similarly recorded. If the mechanism of recording finds was simplified I believe the quantity recorded would increase. It would also leave open the possibility for a means of communicating which items would not be claimed as treasure even if reported due to the number already held in institutions.

Ultimately, people are basically lazy and take the path of least resistance suggesting that most finds will remain unreported.

[Paul Barford 0]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that if for example I found a William 3rd 1st bust shilling, under the rules of treasure trove (over 300 years old and made of silver or gold)...

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.

[Guest Snowman]

There are clearly two sides to the discussion. I don't use a metal detector, but I can sympathise to some extent with those who do not report finds.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that if for example I found a William 3rd 1st bust shilling, under the rules of treasure trove (over 300 years old and made of silver or gold) I should report it notwithstanding the fact that they are as common as muck in dire grade and common even in high grade. It would be unlikely to be claimed by a museum and presumably handed back to me. If it was a rare variety there is a possibility it would be retained however remote this may be. I therefore would not be able to incorporate it into my collection.

You are not required to report coins.

Regarding a database you could take a look at www.ukdfd.co.uk as Mr Barford also uses this in his research.

Here you will find a large selection of coins and other artifacts found by detectorists.

[scottishmoney 18]

Going slightly off topic with discussions of metal detecting and the Treasure Trove Act.

However it does not escape me that one of my collecting interests, that of 17th century English tokens is largely supplied by detectorists finding individual tokens. The great majority of these tokens were not saved by anybody, and often after a period whence they were useful they were cast off which is why for the most part they are found in miserable states of preservation. Seventeenth century tokens usually never circulated out of a specific village or town so that is pretty much where they are found.

[Rob 3,002]

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.

Hi Paul. Thanks for the guidance. First impressions don't fill me with optimism. A search for post medieval coins gave a total of only 227 results with images. A couple of random items gave an Elizabeth 1st shilling (correct) and a James VI or Charles I Scottish shilling. This piece was 13mm diameter and 0.37g in weight and better known as a James I third issue penny S2672. Does anyone vet the entries?

If you don't have to report single coins, does this mean that the Coenwulf find a couple of years ago need not have been reported? This piece to me is not prehistoric and as a single item could not be classified as part of a hoard, yet the BM went out of its way to raise funds and stop it going to the US. It all seems a bit confusing.

[Paul Barford 0]

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

[Paul Barford 0]

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

Edited January 18, 2007 by Paul Barford

[Geordie582 18]

If this coin was not 'Treasure', why did the finder only get 20% of the value? I thought the split would have been 50/50?

[Paul Barford 0]

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