Odyssey's Recovery some of my Observations
This is not a bash Odyssey thread but I hope an objective discussion regarding this find and recovery of the coins and I assume other artifacts from the âBlack Swanâ wreck
I mean the âMerchant Royalâ.
Any tenderfoots without credentials posting should be taken with a pinch of salt.
So will Odyssey get to keep the goods.
I wonder if they will as they have not been very forthcoming with information and have it seems been Clandestinely working this wreck for some time. Remember that Odyssey is a public quoted company and is accountable to their shareholders and the SEC. I see a great deal of trouble for them the way they have handled this.
Now we can assume the wreck is the Merchant Royal from the information we have from Odyssey and the general history available on that particular ship. If it is not the Merchant Royal then the thread is non-consequential and new one should be started âwhich ship is itâ.
So who owns what. The majority of the readers of this thread will be from the US and you all know about ownership of wrecks in and around your coast and the problems arising.
The coins were in part the property of the Spanish government (without going into where they got them from). Did they ever give up their claim to them?
If Spain make a claim how will this affect the HMS Sussex project for Odyssey.
The UK government may elect to extend its waters (unlikely but possible)
What about the owners of the Merchant Royal and the cargo from the earlier trading expedition still on board?
The Captain had an interest on board, so his grand children still have an interest.
The crew had interest so do their heirs.
What do we know about the status of Odysseyâs ownership of the sunken ship? They have to prove they now own it legally.
Note they insist on calling it a âcolonial periodâ wreck. Surely it is from the âStuart periodâ (just being picky)
There are a number of discrepancies emerging in the âofficialâ accounts which suggests not all is as it seems. In particular it appears the Odyssey are very well aware of the shipâs identity, but are officially pretending that they donât know. This crucially prevents any ownership claims being made. And yet before the ownership has been established by a court process, âOdysseyâ is pulling out the finds from the wreck as fast as they can (in fact there is evidence that suggests they were taking stuff from the wreck before they got the wreck arrest order). The point of this is that IF it should be established that somebody OTHER than âOdysseyâ still has ownership rights, the actual owners may decide, in the interests of preserving the site and not to allow further exploitation of their property. They could also say to Odyssey we did not ask you to find and recover our property why did you do it. From this point of view the haste and secrecy with which Odyssey are currently getting the stuff out is unseemly.
The Tampa wreck arrest order would apply to a wreck whose identity is unknown, the minute the identity is established, the situation changes, which is why (one may suspect) they are humming and ha-ing about saying which ship it is. This gives them of course more time to get the loot out, in the way they, and not its owner choose. The location of the find (based on the claim filed in Florida) has now been given as âwithin a five-mile radius of 49°25â˛N 6°0ⲠW / 49.417, -6â
Odyssey moved the coins and other artifacts "the coins were brought into the United States with a valid export license granted by the country from which they were exported, and imported legally pursuant to US law" (http://shipwreck.net/ pr135.html).
Anyone following the doings of the US antiquities market will find nothing remarkable in the latter part of that comment, but from WHICH country were these artifacts exported, and who issued this âvalid export licenseâ?
Which country is in fact empowered to issue an export license at all for several TONNES of archaeological finds (older than 300 years) of undetermined ownership and origin?
Odyssey donât even want to admit through which countryâs ports the artifacts were transferred from boat to cargo jet (though it has been suggested Gibraltar).
It would be very interesting to know what was in those export papers and who signed them. It is going to be a crucial part of their claim.
Odyssey say they are concerned of the politically correct concept that this exploitation has been carried out by âthe correct archaeological protocolsâ, but have not give what they might be. Quote: âWe have treated this site with kid gloves and the archaeological work done by our team out there is unsurpassed," Odyssey CEO John Morris said. "We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site, which we believe will have immense historical significance."
The initial accounts suggested all the finds (over 500,000 of them) had been recovered in a month, other accounts let slip that in fact some finds were taken off the wreck (and apparently were already in the States SO were there TWO export licenses?) BEFORE they got the Tampa ruling. Whatever the timescale however, how long does it take two archaeologists to record underwater the precise find spots of 500,000 small finds, let alone any structural remains of the ship, cannon etc.
Now would be a good time to for Odyssey to reveal now quite HOW they got these finds out of the site, and recorded their find spots, to demonstrate to the world and their SHAREHOLDERS just what standards of exploration are being applied here. And under whoâs laws are they working under. If not I see these recovered artifacts being locked up in court for many years to come, which would be a shame.
As I said at the beginning I am not bashing Odyssey just observing just some of the problems and question that they will have to solve before this pans out.
A quick one for Jeff K, what did they find in the rare book department in Cambridge University Library?
This is not a bash Odyssey thread but I hope an objective discussion regarding this find and recovery of the coins and I assume other artifacts from the âBlack Swanâ wreck
I mean the âMerchant Royalâ.
Any tenderfoots without credentials posting should be taken with a pinch of salt.
So will Odyssey get to keep the goods.
I wonder if they will as they have not been very forthcoming with information and have it seems been Clandestinely working this wreck for some time. Remember that Odyssey is a public quoted company and is accountable to their shareholders and the SEC. I see a great deal of trouble for them the way they have handled this.
Now we can assume the wreck is the Merchant Royal from the information we have from Odyssey and the general history available on that particular ship. If it is not the Merchant Royal then the thread is non-consequential and new one should be started âwhich ship is itâ.
So who owns what. The majority of the readers of this thread will be from the US and you all know about ownership of wrecks in and around your coast and the problems arising.
The coins were in part the property of the Spanish government (without going into where they got them from). Did they ever give up their claim to them?
If Spain make a claim how will this affect the HMS Sussex project for Odyssey.
The UK government may elect to extend its waters (unlikely but possible)
What about the owners of the Merchant Royal and the cargo from the earlier trading expedition still on board?
The Captain had an interest on board, so his grand children still have an interest.
The crew had interest so do their heirs.
What do we know about the status of Odysseyâs ownership of the sunken ship? They have to prove they now own it legally.
Note they insist on calling it a âcolonial periodâ wreck. Surely it is from the âStuart periodâ (just being picky)
There are a number of discrepancies emerging in the âofficialâ accounts which suggests not all is as it seems. In particular it appears the Odyssey are very well aware of the shipâs identity, but are officially pretending that they donât know. This crucially prevents any ownership claims being made. And yet before the ownership has been established by a court process, âOdysseyâ is pulling out the finds from the wreck as fast as they can (in fact there is evidence that suggests they were taking stuff from the wreck before they got the wreck arrest order). The point of this is that IF it should be established that somebody OTHER than âOdysseyâ still has ownership rights, the actual owners may decide, in the interests of preserving the site and not to allow further exploitation of their property. They could also say to Odyssey we did not ask you to find and recover our property why did you do it. From this point of view the haste and secrecy with which Odyssey are currently getting the stuff out is unseemly.
The Tampa wreck arrest order would apply to a wreck whose identity is unknown, the minute the identity is established, the situation changes, which is why (one may suspect) they are humming and ha-ing about saying which ship it is. This gives them of course more time to get the loot out, in the way they, and not its owner choose. The location of the find (based on the claim filed in Florida) has now been given as âwithin a five-mile radius of 49°25â˛N 6°0ⲠW / 49.417, -6â
Odyssey moved the coins and other artifacts "the coins were brought into the United States with a valid export license granted by the country from which they were exported, and imported legally pursuant to US law" (http://shipwreck.net/ pr135.html).
Anyone following the doings of the US antiquities market will find nothing remarkable in the latter part of that comment, but from WHICH country were these artifacts exported, and who issued this âvalid export licenseâ?
Which country is in fact empowered to issue an export license at all for several TONNES of archaeological finds (older than 300 years) of undetermined ownership and origin?
Odyssey donât even want to admit through which countryâs ports the artifacts were transferred from boat to cargo jet (though it has been suggested Gibraltar).
It would be very interesting to know what was in those export papers and who signed them. It is going to be a crucial part of their claim.
Odyssey say they are concerned of the politically correct concept that this exploitation has been carried out by âthe correct archaeological protocolsâ, but have not give what they might be. Quote: âWe have treated this site with kid gloves and the archaeological work done by our team out there is unsurpassed," Odyssey CEO John Morris said. "We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site, which we believe will have immense historical significance."
The initial accounts suggested all the finds (over 500,000 of them) had been recovered in a month, other accounts let slip that in fact some finds were taken off the wreck (and apparently were already in the States SO were there TWO export licenses?) BEFORE they got the Tampa ruling. Whatever the timescale however, how long does it take two archaeologists to record underwater the precise find spots of 500,000 small finds, let alone any structural remains of the ship, cannon etc.
Now would be a good time to for Odyssey to reveal now quite HOW they got these finds out of the site, and recorded their find spots, to demonstrate to the world and their SHAREHOLDERS just what standards of exploration are being applied here. And under whoâs laws are they working under. If not I see these recovered artifacts being locked up in court for many years to come, which would be a shame.
As I said at the beginning I am not bashing Odyssey just observing just some of the problems and question that they will have to solve before this pans out.
A quick one for Jeff K, what did they find in the rare book department in Cambridge University Library?
