The Government response to the consultation on The Treasure Act 1996

jcmaloney
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:29 pm
Has thanked: 278 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Best bit......

"41. We will be looking further at commercial rallies. We want to know how they operate, how they ensure that they work within legislation on treasure and export licensing, and what safeguards they have in place to protect archaeological objects and sites. We are particularly interested in finds which leave the UK, and how these are recorded and regulated."

:clapping:
I`m Marmite me. Opinionated, obstinate and somewhat tenacious.
User avatar
TheFenTiger
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:46 pm
Has thanked: 271 times
Been thanked: 1272 times

There are people who travel over from Europe for rallies and from the few rallies I have been too and the club rules posted online, they never mention export licences. And considering it is a 50 year rule, it won't be long before dug decimal coinage falls under the rules.
Dave
User avatar
figgis
Posts: 7018
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:21 pm
Location: Norfolk (just)
Has thanked: 4075 times
Been thanked: 4753 times

TheFenTiger wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:32 pm There are people who travel over from Europe for rallies and from the few rallies I have been too and the club rules posted online, they never mention export licences.
Really? I should have thought that was an absolute must.
User avatar
Oxgirl
Posts: 13134
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:21 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Has thanked: 9864 times
Been thanked: 11453 times

I think there is a general misconception that we own finds. We don’t. We find them. The landowner owns them or, in the case of Treasure items, the Crown owns them.

Once I knew that it completely changed my view of finds. It’s a bit like business charging VAT - I’ve heard business owners complain bitterly that they have to pay a VAT bill to HMP. In reality they don’t pay VAT to HMP on the sales they make, their customers do and they just collect it on HMP’s behalf. But don’t own the money they collect. It’s the same on finds we make. We don’t own anything unless the land owner/ Crown chooses to pass the ownership back to us. On Treasure we hand over Crown property and maybe get it back (if they decide they don’t want it) or they reward us.

We need to be careful that our bitter refrain of ‘we aren’t getting full market value’ doesn’t bite us on the bottom. In reality we are given a reward for finding a treasure item not being compensated for handing over something we own, cause we don’t own it anyway (unless we are the land owner too). Time to reset the hobbies thinking I suspect!
Yes I really don’t like Roman coins, I’m not joking
User avatar
TheFenTiger
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:46 pm
Has thanked: 271 times
Been thanked: 1272 times

That and the thought that we are being undersold for items. Museums very rarely sell items from their collections so will not profit from obtaining an item through the treasure process.

If you get the treasure hunting magazine it does make sobering reading sometimes of the actual price realised at auction for items. A lot lower than some rally / pub / forum experts give on items. I always thought that would be a fun game for the forum to go back though old issues, post the picture for people to guess how much it actually made.
Dave
User avatar
figgis
Posts: 7018
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:21 pm
Location: Norfolk (just)
Has thanked: 4075 times
Been thanked: 4753 times

Oxgirl wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:29 pm All that Cath said above
Spot. On. :thumbsup:
TheFenTiger wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:36 pm That and the thought that we are being undersold for items. Museums very rarely sell items from their collections so will not profit from obtaining an item through the treasure process.

If you get the treasure hunting magazine it does make sobering reading sometimes of the actual price realised at auction for items. A lot lower than some rally / pub / forum experts give on items. I always thought that would be a fun game for the forum to go back though old issues, post the picture for people to guess how much it actually made.
The trouble with the human condition is that when money is involved, some people's outlook - their very nature - alters and the £ signs in their minces blinds them to all else. Nobody wants to be cheated, agreed, and a fair sytem needs to be put in place and abided by, but by the same token the monetary aspect should be considered as a pure bonus to the privilege of having had the opportunity to have made the find in the first place.

Maybe an unrealistic view, but there it is :)
User avatar
Oxgirl
Posts: 13134
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:21 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Has thanked: 9864 times
Been thanked: 11453 times

Oxgirl wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:29 pm I think there is a general misconception that we own finds. We don’t. We find them. The landowner owns them or, in the case of Treasure items, the Crown owns them.

Once I knew that it completely changed my view of finds. It’s a bit like business charging VAT - I’ve heard business owners complain bitterly that they have to pay a VAT bill to HMP. In reality they don’t pay VAT to HMP on the sales they make, their customers do and they just collect it on HMP’s behalf. But don’t own the money they collect. It’s the same on finds we make. We don’t own anything unless the land owner/ Crown chooses to pass the ownership back to us. On Treasure we hand over Crown property and maybe get it back (if they decide they don’t want it) or they reward us.

We need to be careful that our bitter refrain of ‘we aren’t getting full market value’ doesn’t bite us on the bottom. In reality we are given a reward for finding a treasure item not being compensated for handing over something we own, cause we don’t own it anyway (unless we are the land owner too). Time to reset the hobbies thinking I suspect!
I should have said ownerless items. Obviously where the owner or heir can be traced then the items is legally theirs, not anyone else’s. My tunnel vision on pre 1800 stuff ignores more modern traceable finds :oops:
Yes I really don’t like Roman coins, I’m not joking
User avatar
Jamesey1981
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:09 pm
Has thanked: 740 times
Been thanked: 475 times
Contact:

Oxgirl wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:29 pm I think there is a general misconception that we own finds. We don’t. We find them. The landowner owns them or, in the case of Treasure items, the Crown owns them.

Once I knew that it completely changed my view of finds. It’s a bit like business charging VAT - I’ve heard business owners complain bitterly that they have to pay a VAT bill to HMP. In reality they don’t pay VAT to HMP on the sales they make, their customers do and they just collect it on HMP’s behalf. But don’t own the money they collect. It’s the same on finds we make. We don’t own anything unless the land owner/ Crown chooses to pass the ownership back to us. On Treasure we hand over Crown property and maybe get it back (if they decide they don’t want it) or they reward us.

We need to be careful that our bitter refrain of ‘we aren’t getting full market value’ doesn’t bite us on the bottom. In reality we are given a reward for finding a treasure item not being compensated for handing over something we own, cause we don’t own it anyway (unless we are the land owner too). Time to reset the hobbies thinking I suspect!
This is true, however, it's more the landowners perspective i am thinking about here. If I buy a house and there is a Stradivarius or lost Van Gogh in the loft that isn't proven to be stolen I can sell it wherever I want, or play it, or hang it on the wall in my downstairs loo, why is it different rules for a medieval posy ring?
A Stradivarius would be much more historically significant and a thousand times more valuable than a random ring in a field, but the Crown gets to claim ownership of one but not the other?

I could rant all day about our stupid medieval laws that still hang around but I won't, but I want some honesty, if museums get to acquire items at a discount price there's very little I can do about it if that's the law, but I also don't want them claiming that they aren't at the same time, either the valuations are reasonable or they're not, but say so either way, don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.

At the end of the day the law is the law and I'll stay within it, even if I whinge about it a bit, the only thing I ask is that there is some honesty about the thinking behind them.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.

I'm a Mortgage Broker, please visit my website for help with your mortgage:
https://denariusmortgages.co.uk/
User avatar
Oxgirl
Posts: 13134
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:21 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Has thanked: 9864 times
Been thanked: 11453 times

Jamesey1981 wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:11 pm
This is true, however, it's more the landowners perspective i am thinking about here. If I buy a house and there is a Stradivarius or lost Van Gogh in the loft that isn't proven to be stolen I can sell it wherever I want, or play it, or hang it on the wall in my downstairs loo, why is it different rules for a medieval posy ring?
A Stradivarius would be much more historically significant and a thousand times more valuable than a random ring in a field, but the Crown gets to claim ownership of one but not the other?

I could rant all day about our stupid medieval laws that still hang around but I won't, but I want some honesty, if museums get to acquire items at a discount price there's very little I can do about it if that's the law, but I also don't want them claiming that they aren't at the same time, either the valuations are reasonable or they're not, but say so either way, don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.

At the end of the day the law is the law and I'll stay within it, even if I whinge about it a bit, the only thing I ask is that there is some honesty about the thinking behind them.
No you can’t sell the Van Gogh until you have exhausted every available avenue to find the past owner or heirs which, with house sale trails being pretty well documented, wouldn’t always be difficult. It may count under the old Treasure Trove law too (which yes does still exist in some parts at least) although I’m certainly no expert on that law and could be wrong!

On the Crown point I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of the law. But the law is what it is and we need to work with it. Personally I have no issue with it but I do sympathise with the expectation of fair market prices being set as an expectation, if that isn’t reality. But fair market price bit is pretty subjective from both sides so maybe that’s always going to be an issue even if it was the fairest system in the world ?
Yes I really don’t like Roman coins, I’m not joking
User avatar
TheFenTiger
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:46 pm
Has thanked: 271 times
Been thanked: 1272 times

There are 2 ways of looking at a find in a house.

1) You can contact the previous owner and ask them if it is theirs as they may have forgotten they left it there. Same as finding the owner or living relative of someone who lost / hid something. Like the Treasure Trove law pre-1996.

2) When you bought the house you became the title holder and therefore the owner of the property and everything in it.

When you get permission to go metal detecting you have permission from the owner of the land to search for lost items. Whatever you find in the land belongs to the landowner. Pretty straight forward i think. Not the same as having permission to walk into someones house and taking whatever you find unless of course they have said you can or you are a bailiff :P

As for a discount price, a value is only what someone wants to pay for something. If an item goes to auction it will make the market auction value. The buyer may be a collector so the value stays the same or it could become a retail piece and therefore the value increases as the buyer is looking to make a profit. Take the lead pig ingot that was found a few years ago in Wells. All the armchair experts said it was worth £60,000 so it was sent to auction with that value attached to it as a reserve. It failed to sell. It was re-auctioned and finally made £25,000. That is a big difference.

What we think something is worth, what it will sell at auction for or what you would have to pay for something retail are all different things. At the end of the day museums are not looking to profit from the find and getting paid anything for a find it a bonus. Some countries give a flat fee and that was talked about in the consulation.
Dave
User avatar
TheFenTiger
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:46 pm
Has thanked: 271 times
Been thanked: 1272 times

Oxgirl wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:23 pm It may count under the old Treasure Trove law too (which yes does still exist in some parts at least) although I’m certainly no expert on that law and could be wrong!
It might well do. There was a case a couple of years ago with the gold sovereigns found in a piano donated to a school. The piano tuner who found the items reported it under the treasure trove law and there was an attempt to find the original owner or their descendants but no one was found. The coins I believe were returned and split between the finder and school. The people who donated the piano didn't get anything.
Dave
User avatar
Oxgirl
Posts: 13134
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:21 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Has thanked: 9864 times
Been thanked: 11453 times

TheFenTiger wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:41 pm It might well do. There was a case a couple of years ago with the gold sovereigns found in a piano donated to a school. The piano tuner who found the items reported it under the treasure trove law and there was an attempt to find the original owner or their descendants but no one was found. The coins I believe were returned and split between the finder and school. The people who donated the piano didn't get anything.
Yes I heard about that one, interesting situation :D They were predominantly of a precious metal and under 300 years old so I know they were obviously valid under Treasure Trove law but not sure about other things like paintings or violins :Thinking: Someone with more energy than me might want to look :D
Yes I really don’t like Roman coins, I’m not joking
User avatar
Jamesey1981
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:09 pm
Has thanked: 740 times
Been thanked: 475 times
Contact:

In the case of something found in a loft at the end of the day the courts will decide on that one, they did in the case of some hugely valuable tapestries and found in favour of the person that had them in their possession, not the original owner of the property as they didn't know they were there, but anyway, that's not the point I was trying to make.

The blurb from the DCMS goes to great pains to point out how fair the valuations are, if they're fair, then there's no need for anything to be declared treasure, as museums will pay the same buying the item on the open market. The push to designate more items as treasure contradicts that, as if the valuations are fair the whole process is a colossal waste of time and money, the items can just be bought on the open market and save all the hassle.

I just want them to say which is which, because it sure doesn't look to me like it's about the archaeological value.

These are the rules, this is why. That's all I want.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.

I'm a Mortgage Broker, please visit my website for help with your mortgage:
https://denariusmortgages.co.uk/
User avatar
TheFenTiger
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:46 pm
Has thanked: 271 times
Been thanked: 1272 times

It is about saving items for the nation, not sending someone on a holiday or buying them a new car or metal detector. If everything went to auction, rich Americans would buy everything and no one would get to see anything.
Dave
User avatar
Jamesey1981
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:09 pm
Has thanked: 740 times
Been thanked: 475 times
Contact:

TheFenTiger wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:57 pm It is about saving items for the nation, not sending someone on a holiday or buying them a new car or metal detector. If everything went to auction, rich Americans would buy everything and no one would get to see anything.
We can go to America to see them, just like the Greeks have to come here to look at the Elgin Marbles or the Indians have to come here to look at the Koh-i-Noor.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.

I'm a Mortgage Broker, please visit my website for help with your mortgage:
https://denariusmortgages.co.uk/
Post Reply