See also this rum story!
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
Links
- ARCH
- Artefact Erosion Counter
- Avebury
- CASPN
- Cornwall Archaeology Society
- Council for British Archaeology
- English Heritage
- Ethical Metal Detecting Association
- Heritage Snippets
- ICOMOS-UK
- Journey to the Past
- Megalithomania
- Orkneyjar
- Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues
- Rescue
- Tackling Heritage Crime
- The Art of Jane Tomlinson
- The Modern Antiquarian
- The National Trust
- The Stone Rows of Great Britain
- Wiltshire Heritage Museum
Recent Posts
Archives
Pages
Follow Us
Twitter Feed
- Just a word about Stonehenge heritageaction.wordpress.com/2021/05/05/jus… 1 day ago
- Stonehenge: a warning. heritageaction.wordpress.com/2021/05/03/sto… 2 days ago
- Back to Moreton in Marsh yet again! heritageaction.wordpress.com/2021/05/02/bac… 3 days ago
- Large scale metal detecting rallies to be banned,@surely? heritageaction.wordpress.com/2021/05/01/lar… 5 days ago
- Porkies! 5 Lies Detectorists Like to Tell heritageaction.wordpress.com/2021/04/30/por… 5 days ago
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
08/10/2010 at 18:58
George
Why not impose a tax on these items when they get sold?. If that helmet sold for £2 million it’s way out of reach of museums so with the tax money, they could pay for a really decent replica to put on display. I’m not bothered whether I look at the real thing or a replica if they look the same. The extra tax money left over can go towards other history projects.
Seems like the best way of getting the most money out of the deal.
08/10/2010 at 20:18
Chloe
Yes but a museum having the orginial means it will be acessible to scholars, having a replica and the orginial hidden in a private collection somewhere removes the potential to gain further knowledge. It’s about much. much more than having a nice object to look at. It shouldn’t be about money, important and unique artefacts should belong to the nation for public benefit, not be sold off to the highest bidder.
09/10/2010 at 10:17
George
But the point is, a museum could never afford the original. Scholars make up a nano percent of the people who will look at it, whilst thousands and thousands of members of the public will look at it and say ‘ Wow’ before moving on to the next exhibit in the museum. If it was found on my land I would happily pay to have an exact replica made and then donate the replica to the museum from the proceeds of the sale. let the Scholars have a look at it and do their scholarly things to it for sure but why not give them a legaly bound year of scholarly access before the sale?
09/10/2010 at 12:49
Littlestone
It’s a fake. I don’t mean a fake in the sense of an object made yesterday to resemble an antique, but a fake in so much as what we see now is a recent restoration of what it may once have looked like – not necessarily what it did look like. The original fragments of the helmet now appear to be buried beneath modern materials, held and patched together with modern adhesives and fillers. Whoever bought the helmet has more money than sense, and for it to ever receive serious attention the whole thing would need to be taken apart (assuming reversible materials have been used) and any recently applied surface ‘patina’ removed (assuming that too is reversible). Compare this travesty of restoration with the Sutton Hoo Helmet ( http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/h/helmet_from_sutton_hoo.aspx ) in the British Museum which has been correctly restored, conserved and left to speak for itself. Quoting from the link above, “The new restoration [of the Sutton Hoo Helmet] relied entirely on the evidence of the fragments themselves and not on preconceived ideas – the aim of all modern archaeological conservation. It took the conservator a year of painstaking study and experimentation with more than 500 fragments.”
Further more, most (if not all) museums in this country no longer allow private conservation work to take place on their premises so the helmet would have been sent to a freelance restorer. That could be anyone ranging from someone who has received the proper training to Joe Bloggs the silversmith down on the Finchley Road. If it’s the former a proper conservation record will have been kept, and this will include before and after photos, type of materials used in its restoration (essential information for when/if the helmet is taken apart in the future) and anything else that’s relevant. If Joe’s done it however a conservation record might not have been kept at all.
In other words, not only is this someone’s interpretation of what the helmet may have looked like, in the worst case scenario, it may be a tripple whammy as not only has the archaeological record been compromised but there may also be no record of the helmet’s restoration!
There’s an excellent feature by Barendina Smedley on the ‘restoration’ of the Crosby Garrett Helmet here – http://fugitiveink.wordpress.c%5B…]osby-garrett-helmet-revisited/
09/10/2010 at 14:47
Mo
George,
The proceeds will be taxed. There will be VAT on the buyers and sellers commission. VAT on the restoration cost. Capital Gains Tax on the net sum.
The CGT will be mostly at the higher rate of 28%. When they bank the money they will be taxed on the interest.
Corporation Tax will be payable on Christies profits.
So on £2 million take of £250k for Christies fee and restoration =
£1,750,000. A rough guess taking into account allowances and the lower rate band I would say that at least £400K would be payable in CGT.
If they had allowed the Museum to purchase the Helmet directly my understanding is that there would have been no CGT.
10/10/2010 at 11:16
Pat
“If they had allowed the Museum to purchase the Helmet directly my understanding is that there would have been no CGT.”
…………………………….
But more scrutiny !
10/10/2010 at 13:00
Mo
But more scrutiny !
But then the helmet would have been properly conserved and studied. The finder/finders and landowner would have still received a life changing amount of money.
The increase in visitors to the area would have helped the local economy.
10/10/2010 at 14:59
Pat
Yes, everyone would have benefitted.
Perhaps the finder was a very private person and didn’t like scrutiny?
18/11/2010 at 08:46
Prsutagus
I would like to point out it costs museums nothing as they are funded by the taxpayer. Also if they get fed up with the item ,they can sell the item on for a profit and buy a new artifact for display . As I doubt if the antiquity will go down in value
18/11/2010 at 09:21
heritageaction
“I would like to point out it costs museums nothing as they are funded by the taxpayer.”
Well spotted!
It’s no problem then, and the museums don’t have to run public fundraising campaigns do they and anyway it’s OK for the taxpayer can well afford to buy what it morally owns anyway eh? Great stuff.
03/12/2010 at 15:06
brendan
I my opinion, the Crosby Garret helmet scenario is puzzling because of the secrecy surrounding the exact circumstances of the find, the nature and extent of the restoration and the haste to get the object to market without in-depth analysis and examination. It all sets alarm bells ringing – rightly or wrongly. I’m sorry for the citizens of Cumbria and other members of the public who stumped up £100k in the hopes of securing part of our cultural heritage. Objects of this (apparent)importance should be defined as treasure trove and dealt with in a way that maximises their benefits to international scholarship and art.
The treatment of the Staffordshire Hoard has been exemplary, yeilding not only a host of exquisite artefacts but also a potential mine of information about the state of metal craft and technology in 7th century Britain, the early Christian kingdoms, the patterns of trade and the mind-set of the Saxon warriors who won and lost these treasures in battle. A good result for the PAS whose involvement was a critical factor. Let’s hope the Crosby Garret helmet story has a happy ending too.
03/12/2010 at 15:15
heritageaction
“It all sets alarm bells ringing….”
You might very well think so, we couldn’t possibly comment!
16/02/2011 at 08:26
Chris abbott
Replicas are not quite the same. The Elgin Marble replicas at the British Museum dissappoint. It could be a term of the purchase of an exotic antiquity that the purchaser allows the item to be displayed in a suitable place for (say) a month every year.