A British "treasure hoard" story with a good ending? Hmmm...

[MiddenMonster]

On the surface this story sounds good. Gold coins were found in Great Britain, reported and presumably the finder got a fair value for them. The system worked. Now they are going to be auctioned off. This is where it gets fishy. The gold coins, up to four of them, were found just over two years ago near the battlefield where Richard III was killed by Henry Tudor. The finder notified both the British Museum and the "Portable Antiquities Scheme". Auction value of the coins is in the $25,000 range. The article doesn't state what those two entities decided, but I can't imagine gold coins found in proximity in time and space to the battle where a king was killed by the guy who fired up the next British dynasty being anything but treasure! Both in monetary value and cultural value. You'd think these would be in some kind of museum...run by the British. So why are these coins being auctioned, and who currently has ownership of them? Did the British Museum and Portable Antiquities Scheme declare them to be treasure and pay the finder the government approved amount? And if they sell for more than what the finder was paid, does he/she get to pocket the increase? Maybe I've seen too many episodes of the Rockford Files, but this sounds like a scam to me: A finder is paid a pittance that the government declares is "fair", then when the heat's off the government auctions off the items for more than they paid for them.

Gold coins from 15th century found near Richard III battlefield are going up for auction

There's also some cool pics of these coins. Nothing like gold to retain a shine...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red-Coat]

Yes, I think you have been watching too many episodes of the Rockford files… and I wouldn’t rely on Fox News to accurately report anything!

Your understanding of the way our “Treasure Act” applies is not actually how it works. Bear in mind that I am simplifying things (and the law is different in Scotland from the rest of Britain) but, broadly:

Valuable finds of this kind must be reported to the Museum authorities via the “Portable Antiquities Scheme” or the local Coroner within 14 days of the find. Whether or not they are deemed “Treasure” is then determined by an “inquest”.

In the case of silver and gold coins (rather than other valuable antiquities) they may be deemed “treasure” if two or more are found in the same context (ie a “hoard”) and are at least 300 years old. For coins containing less than 10% gold or silver, there must be at least 10 coins in the hoard.

The inquest must consider whether the coins were “abandoned”, accidentally lost, or concealed with the intention of being recovered; and also whether there is a realistic prospect of tracing the rightful owners or their inheritors if lost or concealed.

As part of the inquest, if the coins are deemed to be “Treasure”, a panel of experts (the “Treasure Valuation Committee”) determines the value as a “fair market price agreed between a willing seller and a willing buyer”. That’s not the same as what the coins might fetch in a competitive auction with aggressive bidding.

The inquest also determines what would be a fair split of the value between finders, landowners, tenants, and other interested parties, taking into account any agreements that might have been made between those parties.

If the find is determined not to be Treasure, ownership goes to the finders/landowners and they can determine what they want to do with it, but are bound by the inquest’s determination on a fair split of value. Treasure belongs to the Crown. First refusal on acquiring it at the value set by the Treasure Valuation Committee must be given to the Museum authorities. When museums decline to make the acquisition it may be for one of several reasons: they have enough examples in their collections already; limited historical or research interest does not justify the use of their funds; or they have insufficient funds. In the latter case, they may be granted a period of time to raise funds via routes such as Arts Council grants, charitable donations, or public appeals. Usually the time period would be set in months rather than years.

You would be surprised at how often museums decline their option on acquisition of coins… even with this kind of historical connection. They turn up with sufficient frequency that museums are not short of examples for research or display.

If a museum does make the acquisition, the money goes directly to the finders/landowners etc with the split that was determined by the inquest. The Crown gets no financial benefit. If the museum services decline to make the acquisition, or cannot raise the necessary funds, the find becomes the property of the finders/landowners with the same split that the inquest determined.

Usually (unless one of the beneficiaries buys out the other parties), the only way for the finders/landowners to split the value of finds is for them to be auctioned, such that the cash proceeds can be divided. In those cases, a well-marketed auction with the right bidders could well see the hammer price substantially exceed the value set by the Treasure Valuation Committee.

The only way the Crown benefits financially is via taxation. Any monies received, whether from the Museum authorities or from an auction sale, are subject to “Capital Gains Tax”. Last time I checked, Capital Gains above £11,700 per person per annum are taxed at 10%, rising to 20% for higher rate taxpayers.

 

[ARC]

Gotta love Britain for the realistic regulations and relationships with metal detectorists.
Not only does it show they are smarter than other countries but they have benefited greatly and enriched the historical legacies and knowledge's across the board by leaps and bounds.

I am truly jealous ...... and I applaud them for this.

 

[MiddenMonster]

Your understanding of the way our “Treasure Act” applies is not actually how it works. Bear in mind that I am simplifying things (and the law is different in Scotland from the rest of Britain) but, broadly:

Actually, other than the more technical aspects, i.e. quantity of coins, % pure, etc your explanation is pretty close to how I pictured it.

As part of the inquest, if the coins are deemed to be “Treasure”, a panel of experts (the “Treasure Valuation Committee”) determines the value as a “fair market price agreed between a willing seller and a willing buyer”. That’s not the same as what the coins might fetch in a competitive auction with aggressive bidding.

Yeah, it's definitely not the same. In many ways, I see a problem with this because of the huge value gap between "willing seller/buyer" and "aggressive bidding". I would argue that if aggressive bidding were a possibility, the "fair market price" is going to be closer to auction price than willing seller/buyer price. The auction block is no less part of the market than a willing seller and buyer. Unfortunately, the article doesn't shed any light on the particulars of this auction. If it turns out that these coins were not declared treasure, and the auction is the result of the finder and landowner agreeing to liquidating them and splitting the rake I am all for it. On the other hand, if the British Museum declared these coins to be treasure, paid the value determined by the Treasure Valuation Committee and is now putting them up for auction, that's a big problem for me. You have a good argument about how many things are not declared treasure because there are already plenty of curated examples already. But it kind of becomes moot if the objects in question were never intended to become part of a collection in the first place. If they can be declared treasure, but later auctioned off by the government for a profit. That's where I get the scam vibe. It doesn't mean that scam really is going on. But it is controlled by government, an there isn't a government in the world that is above pulling something like this to raise revenue. Keep in mind that in the U.S., "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" is One of the Three Biggest Lies of All Time. Along with "The check is in the mail" and the third one, which can't be spoken here but is nonetheless freakin' hilarious.

As for Fox News, based on their article, most of the information seems to have come from SWNS, which is a British joint. Never heard of them before that article.

 

[Red-Coat]

Actually, other than the more technical aspects, i.e. quantity of coins, % pure, etc your explanation is pretty close to how I pictured it.



Yeah, it's definitely not the same. In many ways, I see a problem with this because of the huge value gap between "willing seller/buyer" and "aggressive bidding". I would argue that if aggressive bidding were a possibility, the "fair market price" is going to be closer to auction price than willing seller/buyer price. The auction block is no less part of the market than a willing seller and buyer. Unfortunately, the article doesn't shed any light on the particulars of this auction. If it turns out that these coins were not declared treasure, and the auction is the result of the finder and landowner agreeing to liquidating them and splitting the rake I am all for it. On the other hand, if the British Museum declared these coins to be treasure, paid the value determined by the Treasure Valuation Committee and is now putting them up for auction, that's a big problem for me. You have a good argument about how many things are not declared treasure because there are already plenty of curated examples already. But it kind of becomes moot if the objects in question were never intended to become part of a collection in the first place. If they can be declared treasure, but later auctioned off by the government for a profit. That's where I get the scam vibe. It doesn't mean that scam really is going on. But it is controlled by government, an there isn't a government in the world that is above pulling something like this to raise revenue. Keep in mind that in the U.S., "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" is One of the Three Biggest Lies of All Time. Along with "The check is in the mail" and the third one, which can't be spoken here but is nonetheless freakin' hilarious.

As for Fox News, based on their article, most of the information seems to have come from SWNS, which is a British joint. Never heard of them before that article.

It is one of the criticisms often levelled here by detectorists (usually those who pursue the hobby with emphasis on financial gain) that the Committee’s valuation is conservative versus competitive auctions. However, it’s not their remit to try and second guess a speculative possible top end price. Of the current eight members on the Committee, one is Harry Bain – Publisher and Editor of “The Searcher” magazine for metal detector users and amateur archaeologists. Members are unpaid, independent, serve one or two five-year periods, and are typically selected from respected experts in museums, auction houses, numismatic societies, plus others with archaeological expertise or experience. Minutes of all meetings are released into the public domain. It’s not a perfect system, but fairer than most compared to other regulated countries.

Although the payment given to finders is usually portrayed (by the press, and even by those who should know better) as a “purchase”, from a legal standpoint that’s not the case. It’s actually a “reward”, intended to discourage finders from robbing the nation of not just the artefacts themselves, but also of potentially important knowledge of our rich history. As such, the determined value is not designed to line the pockets of profiteer detectorists.

There is still of course a black-market for undeclared finds. More often than not, these finds are not just undeclared but have been stolen by detectorists without permission to search the land where the finds were made (“night-hawks”). They’re not just stealing from the nation, but also from those entitled to a share of any reward. That’s pure greed, as well as being an additional offence.

I don’t know if these particular coins were deemed to be “treasure” but your belief that the British Museum (or any other qualifying museum entitled to first refusal) might have acquired them as such to then anonymously auction at a later date for a higher price in some kind of scam is in fantasy-land. All members of our museum services are required to keep acquisition records for things they obtain, and deaccession records for items subsequently permanently removed from their collections or otherwise disposed of. The kinds of practices you’re imagining would quickly be rumbled from their publicly-available accounts and balance sheets.

In saying “if the British Museum declared these coins to be treasure…” you seem to be under the impression that it’s their decision to make. It isn’t. As I said, the judgement on whether coins or other artefacts are “treasure” is determined from evidence presented in a “Coroner’s Court” presided over by a specialist Judge.

 

[MiddenMonster]

It is one of the criticisms often levelled here by detectorists (usually those who pursue the hobby with emphasis on financial gain) that the Committee’s valuation is conservative versus competitive auctions. However, it’s not their remit to try and second guess a speculative possible top end price.

It seems like a valid criticism, to me. If something is deemed to be treasure, why not let the market decide and give the State the right to beat that bid? That's going to be as close to fair market value as one can expect to get. Another method would be for the finder to accept the offer by the Treasure Evaluation Committee, or let it go directly to auction and split 50/50 with the revenuers. My belief is that ancient artifacts fare much better in private collections than public collections. And they fare better in some public collections than others. People gripe about the Elgin Marbles and other artifacts being "stolen" from their native lands. But if the Elgin Marbles hadn't been taken to England they wouldn't be around today as Greece has a terrible track record preserving their history. Private collectors can also loan out their acquisitions to museums and private entities as they desire, not to mention donating them or offering them for permanent exhibition. And chances are the Mona Lisa wouldn't get covered in cake in a private collection.

All members of our museum services are required to keep acquisition records for things they obtain, and deaccession records for items subsequently permanently removed from their collections or otherwise disposed of. The kinds of practices you’re imagining would quickly be rumbled from their publicly-available accounts and balance sheets.

Records just show what happened, not the intent behind it. The money flows into government coffers, and can be flowed back through grants, endowments and access. It's just simple human nature; people seek power, and once attained they seek to consolidate and then expand it.

 

[Red-Coat]

You continue to display a lack of understanding about our laws and the way our museum services operate and are funded.

First off, when an item is deemed to be “treasure” it belongs to the Crown by default (or call it the State if you prefer). The Crown does not offer such items for sale since it upholds the principle that the finds are in its trust and does not actually exert its ownership, either materially or financially. The Crown’s preference would be that items with sufficient interest are preserved “for the nation” and, for that reason, the museum services (not just the British Museum) are offered first refusal as a legal obligation. But the Crown is not acting as a seller since the money comes from the museum services budget and goes to the finders/landowners. The Crown is not a player in the transactions.

Secondly, our Treasure Act is designed to offer encouragement for people to report such finds (and conversely discourage their concealment). As well as making failure to report such finds a punishable offence, the inducement to do the right thing is via the financial reward if the museum services take up their option to acquire. It’s a stick and carrot approach. There will always be criticism about whether the advice from the Treasure Valuation Committee is “fair”... and, by the way, it is no more than advice as a recommendation that requires approval by the Secretary of State (but the recommendation is habitually accepted as a matter of routine). Perhaps the word “appropriate” would be more apt than “fair”.

Thirdly, our National museums are not owned by the Crown/State. They’re independent institutions, albeit subject to regulation. The British Museum, for example, is an “Executive Non-Departmental Public Body”, as well as being a “Registered Charity” and is regulated as such. Although it is sponsored by both governmental and non-governmental bodies (and receives some government funding), it has its own board of trustees responsible for its general management, budgets/accounts, and employees, but is accountable to the public via Parliament.

Government funding comes via a “grant-in-aid” from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” (DCMS) but the museum’s main income is secured from a combination of donations, sponsorship from its patrons and friends plus commercial sale of publications, the sale of souvenirs, replicas and such, food & drinks in its cafeteria, and entrance charges.

As a matter of policy, the Government mandated in 2001 that there should be no admission charges by museums housing national collections. So, you can walk right into the BM (and other museums or art galleries of this type) without paying a penny, irrespective of whether you are a UK resident or a foreign visitor. You’ll pass by a voluntary donation box (all contributions gratefully received) but, other than that, entry is free to all. Such museums are able to charge admission if they put on a special exhibition in a designated area (for example the BM held a temporary exhibition of Ice Age Art, within which it had borrowed items from museums across Europe). Entry to the main museum remains free during such exhibitions.

The museum’s purpose is to hold its collections “in trust” for the nation without actually having ownership of the items themselves. It’s for that reason the monies used to “acquire” treasure are not a purchase as such, but a reward paid to finders/landowners if it would be in the public interest for the museum to add them to its collections. The monies paid to finders/landowners under the terms of the Treasure Act do not come from Government and, if items are subsequently deaccessioned, the proceeds do not go into government coffers. The only financial aspect that relates to Government is that DCMS grants are (a lesser) part of the overall pot of money managed by the museum.

The driver for admission fees to be universally abolished was to get a greater degree of engagement from the public in cultural history. In terms of visitor numbers it was a huge success, with museums seeing an average 70% increase in visitors, although the cultural benefits remain unproven. Unfortunately, the increase in footfall did not result in a commensurate increase in income to offset the reduction from not charging admission. But Government did not intervene with extra funding, preferring instead to assist by allowing museums to reclaim VAT (Value Added Tax, levied at 20% on many goods and most services). Additional funding was however provided during the Covid epidemic, as it was to many businesses suffering from the effects of ‘lockdown’.

The “private collection” vs “public museum collection” debate is a long-standing one which has its supporters on both sides of the fence. I would just say this. When items go to auction, the magnitude of the bid doesn’t necessarily go hand-in-hand with the integrity of the buyer, nor the propensity to loan, donate or share public viewing access to what they have purchased. Their thinking can be a long way from the national policy of public access in a museum that has no admission charge… which is what we aspire to. Museums of course also have much better expertise in restoration and research. It’s also worth remembering that museum services are not solely exhibition showcases. They also put a huge amount of effort into gathering evidence from artefacts that adds to academic knowledge and insight. Things like x-ray analysis, electron microscopy, conducting metallurgical testing, identifying casting or engraving techniques, establishing accurate dates and possible origins as well as historical contexts. Private collectors are not well-equipped for this and, in any case, not necessarily inclined to pursue such knowledge.