Just posted on a detecting forum (and getting loads of support): “So, today we received the valuation for our 20 piece, 1kg, 1100 year old viking hoard of hack silver. Split 3 ways between myself, daniel and the land owner…. £400 each. I honestly am gutted. We dont do it for the money but lets be honest, there is no wonder so many finds go unrecorded to the flo. We knew the BM would rip us off but we didnt expect to be stripped naked….”
.
“We knew the BM would rip us off but we didnt expect to be stripped naked”
For the information of all likeminded crybabies, there are about 200,000 proper amateur archaeologists in Britain who don’t take money for their finds. Or complain. They see them as everyone’s, not someone’s and they do it for the love of history, see?
One of his colleagues has a theory: “They are wishing to impose ‘austerity’ on valuations.” …. Er, no. But think of this: the treasure rewards and Ebay earnings that detectorists get are the only part of the heritage sector that hasn’t suffered massive cuts. So actually, detectorists are uniquely privileged. Anyone think being ungrateful and graceless is the best reaction to that reality?
Update 4 October
A comment from “Spencer”: “Split 3 ways between myself, daniel and the land owner…. £400 each”. So the poor old landowner only gets a third! How can that possibly be right? What if there were 9 artefact hunters poking around. Would the farmer only get a tenth?”
__________________________________________
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
03/10/2015 at 18:22
MoDancer
Where does the figure of 200,000 amateur archaeologists come from as it seems very high. I’m surprised if it is that much.
03/10/2015 at 20:46
Nigel S
Yes, it may be too high but it was a direct quote from a Beeb programme (16 July 2011) in which they were doing penance for calling detectorists amateur archaeologists. They got the CBA and the Minister to take part and suggested there were 200K people involved in amateur archaeology. What is certainly true is that there are an awful lot of them, far more than there are detectorists.
04/10/2015 at 10:08
jane001
Wow. Not done for the money, but feeling “ripped off” and “stripped naked”. Now really.
04/10/2015 at 10:47
Spencer
Plus, “Split 3 ways between myself, daniel and the land owner…. £400 each”. So the poor old landowner only gets a third! How can that possibly be right? What if there were 9 artefact hunters poking around. Would the farmer only get a tenth?
04/10/2015 at 12:41
Paul Barford
“What if there were 9 artefact hunters poking around?”
Interestingly, there was a point made by one of them that in such cases, the landowner was required to provide documentation to the Coroner that he is actually owner of the land, http://www.metaldetectingforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=50530&start=220
But a few months ago, the Maidstone Coroner insisted quite vehemently me that she is under no obligation to determine whether the finder of the Hollingbourne brooches was on the land with the explicit agreement of the landowner (it was being rumoured that he was not actually a member of the club that had the permission, but a guest). It turns out that there is no actual legal requirement for the Coroner to establish the legal circumstances of the find.
So it looks as if the cards are stacked against the landowner by British law. The same here, did both finders have explicit written permission to search and take, or was one the ‘guest’ of the permission holder? And yes, Silas Brown should warn fellow farmers to take an interest in those ‘search and take’ agreements, fifty-fifty between whom precisely?
04/10/2015 at 13:27
Nigel S
“And yes, Silas Brown should warn fellow farmers to take an interest in those ‘search and take’ agreements, fifty-fifty between whom precisely?”
Well of course, few of those have the nerve to suggest the farmer gets less than 50%, but this case is about Treasure rewards. It’s most peculiar. Could it be that the Treasure award split reflects te finds agreement in this case? Surely not?
It strikes me there’s room for all sorts of shenanigans. Suppose I paid you to say you were with me when you weren’t – I could get two thirds of the reward instead of half, and pay you a few quid for your trouble. And vice versa the following week….
04/10/2015 at 13:56
Paul Barford
> It strikes me there’s room for all sorts of shenanigans. <
After all if a nighthawk claims something was found on his brother's land, who is to check that this was the case or not? This is why I do not understand the Coroner NOT being required as part of the inquest to determine the circumstances of the case. If not the Coroner, who?
It's like saying "nighthawks don't exist".
04/10/2015 at 14:51
Keith
Agreed, it is strange, the valuation of £1200(?) looks like the scrap silver value. Currently between £0.13 and £0.27 per gram depending on the quality of the silver.
04/10/2015 at 15:25
heritageaction
For all the huffing and puffing I’ve yet to see anyone put up a clear, convincing case, based on actual evidence, that the reward should have been higher.
Not that that’s the main issue. It’s the attempt to get more out of the community that’s particularly unsavoury – and telling. Ed Vaizey definitely got it wrong in their cases didn’t he!
04/10/2015 at 15:35
Paul Barford
Keith, the Treasure ransom is the market value. Surely it is clear to everyone that with more and more metal detectorists going out finding stuff, and more and more material coming onto the market from illegal digging at home and abroad, the ‘scarcity value’ and ‘age value’ of all kinds of antiquities, [including groups of cruddy ingots and rings as here] WILL drop. That’s what we get for “democratisation of the market”. The more stuff artefact hunters take out of the archaeological record, week after week, month after month, year after year over a few decades, then market values for low end stuff will drop.
05/10/2015 at 22:49
slomop
How do they decide the figure? Does anyone know what criteria decides the value.
06/10/2015 at 04:49
heritageaction
Slomop, it’s open market value arrived at by looking at comparable evidence by a panel comprising prominent academics, dealers and a metal detecting representative. Their minutes are published and there’s an appeal system whereby aggrieved persons can offer additional evidence.
Valuation is an inexact science and by it’s nature there will be a range of possible values and the chosen figure will sometimes be at the lower limit of realistic possibilities and sometimes the higher.
The accusation is that the panel deliberately reduces valuations to deprive detectorists of their legal entitlement. It’s unconvincing beyond the world of detecting forums.
06/10/2015 at 20:22
MoDancer
Currently between £0.13 and £0.27 per gram depending on the quality of the silver.
##
If its only silver scraps then I suppose it is only actually worth £1200 as metal as it doesn’t have any aesthetic value.
07/10/2015 at 00:36
scrabbler
Maybe they should have metal detected the oswestry site and donated the money from the finds to the fighting fund. Knowledge and money used effectively.
07/10/2015 at 05:42
heritageaction
MoDancer, I agree, that’s probably the crux.
07/10/2015 at 16:29
MoDancer
At the end of the day its scrap silver so whether its Victorian or Viking it doesn’t matter in terms of value once melted down other than the fact because it is old it goes through the Treasure scheme. If he sold it on the open market outside of the scheme he would still get the same.
08/10/2015 at 13:59
scrabbler
I wonder what the farmer thought of the valuation?
08/10/2015 at 22:01
Foof
Thanks for highlighting this because it shows how crazy things are in UK
Foof