COIN BROUGHT TO COURT

[Kev]

a very good read




http://www.shropshirestar.com/2010/02/24/court-order-on-tenbury-wellstreasure/

[Neil]

Thats an interesting story Kev. I guess it cant be a single coin as by my understanding that would not be declareable. I figure it must fall into the artefacts section of the law.

Nice post
Neil

[waltonbasinman]

Interesting read and a eye opener. It has amazed me that it has resulted in a court case and if they go to court for that where will it end. Knowing some of the people involved I think there may be more to this than we are being told. Thanks for posting Kev

[rjm]

The definition is below and I can't see what it would fall under!  (Piedfort is a coin)


The following finds are Treasure under the Act, if found after 24 September 1997 (or, in the case of category 2, if found after 1 January 2003):


   1. Any metallic object, other than a coin, provided that at least 10 per cent by weight of metal is precious metal (that is, gold or silver) and that it is at least 300 years old when found. If the object is of prehistoric date it will be Treasure provided any part of it is precious metal.
   2. Any group of two or more metallic objects of any composition of prehistoric date that come from the same find (see below)
   3. All coins from the same find provided they are at least 300 years old when found (but if the coins contain less than 10 per cent of gold or silver there must be at least ten of them). Only the following groups of coins will normally be regarded as coming from the same find:
          * hoards that have been deliberately hidden
          * smaller groups of coins, such as the contents of purses, that may been dropped or lost
          * votive or ritual deposits.
   4. Any object, whatever it is made of, that is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, another object that is Treasure.
   5. Any object that would previously have been treasure trove, but does not fall within the specific categories given above. Only objects that are less than 300 years old, that are made substantially of gold or silver, that have been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery and whose owners or heirs are unknown will come into this category.

Note: An object or coin is part of the ‘same find’ as another object or coin if it is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, the other object. Finds may have become scattered since they were originally deposited in the ground.

[rjm]

Just looked up a piedfort:   It is a coin so I'm a bit baffled as to why it needed to be reported.

One for FLO Mark Lodwick to explain !!


Definitions of Piedfort on the Web:

    * A piedfort or piedforte is a coin of twice or more times the thickness of the currency coin, though often exactly twice the normal weight and ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedfort

    * A coin, token or medal which has been struck using standard dies on a planchet which is thicker than normal (usually double thickness). ...
      www.australianstamp.com/coin-web/history/glossary.htm

    * A coin that is struck on a thicker blank than is usual.
      www.swapexpert.com/home/dictionry.php

[zorro]

rjm dont think any of those sections fit into this story as it clearly states
"The following finds are Treasure under the Act, if found after 24 September 1997 (or, in the case of category 2, if found after 1 January 2003):"

in the story the lady says she found the coin years ago when she was young i.e. BEFORE 1997 so would all the conditions be irrelevant?

[Al.Thepastfinder, ( Alan )]

your right there Kev , it wouldn't come under treasure either old or new laws, ?  got me scratching my head too that,  Hmm unless as whats been said there is more to this than we are being told,
 a strange one that,

[rjm]

rjm dont think any of those sections fit into this story as it clearly states
"The following finds are Treasure under the Act, if found after 24 September 1997 (or, in the case of category 2, if found after 1 January 2003):"

in the story the lady says she found the coin years ago when she was young i.e. BEFORE 1997 so would all the conditions be irrelevant?

You may well be right.

However, the article states she is 23 years old and the coin was "found years ago".

The Treasure Act has been in 13 years so it would depend upon when EXACTLY she found it. (She was probably under the age of legal responsibility?)

The whole thing doesn't ring right. Possibly something missing from the reporting. If anything, her mother would be the one responsible?

[Al.Thepastfinder, ( Alan )]

ohh  there must be more,  a single coin is not or never has been treasure ?  and the finder has no obligation to report it other than volentary

[rjm]

Re-reading it, the current Treasure Act would apply (if it was a treasure) as it states that the FLO advised her to report it as treasure (sometime within past 13 years!!) and she failed to do so.

The only thing remaining is, was it a solitary find?  If so, being a coin, I can't see how it needs reporting.

[Al.Thepastfinder, ( Alan )]

The Flo had no right asking her to report it,  its not treasure..

 Now the only other thing i can think of is,  was a hoard found by one of their family or friends back then,   one or two coins taken out for them selves before reporting,
 years later the daughter decides to find out about it, saying it was found in their garden, her mother may have told her that, and may  have not even,  she may have said they found it in the garden as a cover,,
 but when the museum checked the coin and their records found it may have come from that Hoard back then, which hadn't been reported with the hoard,  it may have been found at  a later date on the same site as the hoard, but not reported,   it would have had to be reported then as it would have been part of the hoard and classed as treasure

Alan

[rjm]

The Flo had no right asking her to report it,  its not treasure..

 Now the only other thing i can think of is,  was a hoard found by one of their family or friends back then,   one or two coins taken out for them selves before reporting,
 years later the daughter decides to find out about it, saying it was found in their garden, her mother may have told her that, and may  have not even,  she may have said they found it in the garden as a cover,,
 but when the museum checked the coin and their records found it may have come from that Hoard back then, ehich hadn't been reported with the hoard,  it may have been found at  a later date on the same site as the hoard, but not reported,   it would have had to be reported then as it would have been part of the hoard and classed as treasure

Alan

I think you're getting closer to the facts now - reading between the lines.

[The Doc]

Interesting and very strange story. As has been said, maybe there is more between the lines about this case.

If it was a single item and it was found before the Treasure Act became law on 24 September 1997 then it couldn't come under that Act.

If it was found before that date and was part of a larger group of finds that may have been deliberately buried or hidden, then it should have been reported under the old treasure trove common law, so I guess it would be an offence if the find was not reported.

If it was a single object found after the date above, then the legal position would depend on whether a piedfort is classed as a coin or as an artefact. Maybe the court was convinced by an expert that it was not intended to be a circulating coin. My understanding is that this is the case and piedforts would have been struck for presentation or commemorative purposes. So that may be how it was deemed an offence not to declare it.

Will be interesting to see if anything else emerges about the case.