The Government response to the consultation on The Treasure Act 1996

[Easylife]

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).

In my opinion it matters not who owns it or even found it. A landowner's/finder's reward should relate to the items true value rather than say just a token gesture. I certainly don't expect to be paid for the often many hundreds of hours of fruitless searching before finding a treasure item, but is merely asking for a fair valuation so unreasonable?
The TVC originally under valued my gold filigree dress pin head by comparing it the same as a copper/alloy one - so were just taking the piss it seems! So I presented them with some of their very own previous valuations which they could hardly dispute and they then offered double! It hardly inspires confidence but I will keep an open mind of their next valuation when it finally happens!

[Easylife]

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.

Yes, human greed can be a disease in certain people who want it all. Surely half of a very large sum of money and sleeping easy is better than risking all and always watching out?
So I take it you'll be happy for me to give you a quid each for your hammies as you're quite content just to have had just "the privilege of having had the opportunity to have made the find in the first place"?
Is it convenient to collect them tomorrow?

[Pete E]

If everything went to auction, rich Americans would buy everything and no one would get to see anything.

So what you are saying is that Museums couldn't afford, or are unwilling to pay, the true market price at auction, but could afford the item under the Treasure Act because the TVC assessment of the market price is lower???

The estimated market value should be a little lower as there is no need to account for things like commission, but it should be in the same ball park...

One other thing to consider is that if the Finder is awarded a decent enough amount of cash, the Government will claw a big chunk back as Capitol Gains tax and possibly even more of it, if you try to leave it as inheritance in your will...At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask when he robbed people!

[Easylife]

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.

There's not often too much chance of that really. But at what point does a potential treasure item belong to the crown? Before it is found? When it is handed in? If only declared as treasure? Or until it is handed back?
I would assume the first until given back!

[Pete E]

There's not often too much chance of that really. But at what point does a potential treasure item belong to the crown? Before it is found? When it is handed in? If only declared as treasure? Or until it is handed back?
I would assume the first until given back!

I would think only after the Coroner makes his/her ruling???

[Easylife]

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

Not necessarily, with most more recent house purchases it kind of depends just how the seller's form has been filled in!

[TheFenTiger]

But at what point does a potential treasure item belong to the crown? Before it is found? When it is handed in? If only declared as treasure? Or until it is handed back?
I would assume the first until given back!

Legally, yes, before it is found. When it is found or when it is realised as treasure you have 14 days to inform the coroner but you know all that already. Ignorance unfortunately is no defence in law.

[TheFenTiger]

So what you are saying is that Museums couldn't afford, or are unwilling to pay, the true market price at auction, but could afford the item under the Treasure Act because the TVC assessment of the market price is lower???

The estimated market value should be a little lower as there is no need to account for things like commission, but it should be in the same ball park...

One other thing to consider is that if the Finder is awarded a decent enough amount of cash, the Government will claw a big chunk back as Capitol Gains tax and possibly even more of it, if you try to leave it as inheritance in your will...At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask when he robbed people!

What I am saying is there are people with more money than sense and auctions can induce bid fever or bring people out who the true value is immaterial, but the kudos of owning something means they will pay whatever it takes to own it. If that item goes to auction again, it probably won't make the same amount the second time around. Or if another is found the value diminishes.

Not sure treasure is taxed so it is not as if the government is gaining that way and if you die with enough to have to worry about inheritance tax I am sure you are savvy enough to mitigate it.

Still, we are all detectorists. Not in it for the money innet, just the 'istory. It is a unique hobby where feel hard done by and it is felt we have to be paid for our "hard earned hours" we put in. We moan having to pay £8 for insurance but this it probably the only hobby that costs pennies with the potential for paying out thousands. I guess only fishing lakes with prize fish comes close.

[Pete E]

What I am saying is there are people with more money than sense and auctions can induce bid fever or bring people out who the true value is immaterial, but the kudos of owning something means they will pay whatever it takes to own it. If that item goes to auction again, it probably won't make the same amount the second time around. Or if another is found the value diminishes.

But on either of those days, the item would be sold for market price even if that is radically different...That's the risk or reward of the auction system!

As it happens I am fairly happy with the present system ( except of the delays) but I can understand why some detectorists and landowners feel "cheated"...

In fairness I should say I would be pushed to suggest a better system, at least not one that did not incur the extra costs of using an auction house, except maybe a sealed bid auction administered by say the DCMS?

[Easylife]

I have no great complaints about the current system apart from that it is just so bleedin' slow!

[Steve RC]

Whatever happens it is probably a good time to produce dated photographs any finds or acquired items which might be captured by any new defintion of Treasure. The same will apply if they ever activate the various clauses from the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which cover being the acquirer or possessor of any item that would meet the definitions of Treasure.

Under those intended terms it is the possesor who has to prove that the item was found or acquired before the Treasure Act came into force. Being unable to do that will result in it being deemed that the item was found after the commencement of the Treasure Act and so be potential Treasure and be required to go to an inquest. Because most older acquisitions especially those obtained by inheritance or purchase are unlikley to be accompanied by paperwork, they will be treasure and any museum which seeks to acquire them for their collections will be able to purchase them at half price.

I say half price because there is unlikely to be a landowner involved so the system will only pay a reward of 50% to the possessor.

The response needs a good deal of analysing in the light of previous attempts to revise the TAct, other legislation and basically what has gone on in the debate over the last 18 years since the last Review. It has taken me 17 pages to analyse it so far and i still have Section 5 to deal with.

[muddy mick]

Really? I should have thought that was an absolute must.

Not surprising as not everything needs a export licence, theres even a clause in the Treasure act that stipulates this