Treasure and coins confusion

Information and discussion on Hoards and Treasure found.
Post Reply
Merneo
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:13 am
Location: Beds
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Treasure and coins confusion

Post by Merneo » Wed May 30, 2018 10:22 pm

Hi, I am some what confused by the definition of treasure and coins

The act keeps saying except coins - then adds them in again confused

May be someone can explain pre 300 yrs and after 300 yrs

I find a gold roman aureus - what’s that ?

There are also a few bronze coins same field as the gold coin what’s that ?


If I detect in a field ( with permission) and found 10 Victorian sovereigns how is that classed except a happy day

This is all theoretical as just trying to understand what is what

Thanks

Paul


Whites Coinmaster 2/DB Series 2
Sand Scoop Home Made As yet untested
Trowel and Spade

NCMD Member

User avatar
coal digger
Posts: 3166
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:23 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: Treasure and coins confusion

Post by coal digger » Wed May 30, 2018 11:44 pm

If you've found a roman gold...i want to see it =P~
Never wish this day gone, as this day can never be replaced

User avatar
Oxgirl36
Moderator
Posts: 4301
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:54 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Has thanked: 1852 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Treasure and coins confusion

Post by Oxgirl36 » Thu May 31, 2018 12:04 am

Here’s a nice simple explanation....

https://finds.org.uk/treasure/advice/summary

Hope it helps ::g
XP Deus
9 silver hammered coins (1 in 2016; 7 in 2017) - and, at last, 1 in 2018 :D

User avatar
f8met
Posts: 1451
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 12:14 am
Location: Cambs and Suffolk
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Treasure and coins confusion

Post by f8met » Thu May 31, 2018 10:53 am

It does seem complicated until you get your head around it. Break it down into 2 and it becomes clearer

Artefacts (not coins)

So 300 years is anything from 300 years ago so pre-1718.

Gold or silver, pretty straight forward for solid objects such as rings but it states at least 10% so something made of copper with gold in it which could be more than 10% qualifies. Say a ring made from copper wire with gold wound into it.

Prehistoric, so earlier than Roman, if there is any gold or silver it qualifies as treasure. Say a bronze sword with a small amount of gold on it will qualify.

Any collection of prehistoric items like 2 or more axeheads or spears in the same hole or in close proximity which looks like they would have been together qualifies.

Now coins do fall into this, because if there is a coin together with the objects then it becomes part of the find. Also applies to any other material, which can be the iron lock which held the long gone box the items were in also become part of the treasure.

Coins

Again, over 300 years and gold and silver are straight forward.

2 gold or silver coins are straight forward. At the moment a single coin doesn't count but we will need to see what the treasure review turns up.

10 base metal coins is for instance a load of Roman coins. What happens if there are 9 base metal and 1 silver? Speak to the FLO. If there is a pot close by or pieces of pot they would become part of the treasure.

Then there is a catch-all of anything which would have previously been considered treasure under the old act, items of any age deliberately hidden with the intention of recovery where the owner cannot be determined. For instance gold hidden in a piano is a recent one.

There is a interpretation on found together. How close do they have to be to be found together? Someone in my club found 2 Saxon pennies which he claims were found in 2 modern fields but as they were the same coin from the same rare mint it is likely they were lost at the same time and are going through as treasure.

I found 5 groats spread over a fairly wide area but they were all the same coin and were on or close to the surface so open for movement so likely to have been lost together. Conversely an area of roman coins in a fairly small area were not deemed to have been treasure as the dates on them were spread over 100 years so were considered normal scatter.

If in doubt, just ask your FLO.
Dave

Deus, 9" black coil + Elliptical hf

2018 19 Hammered

jcmaloney
Posts: 1922
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:17 am
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 221 times

Re: Treasure and coins confusion

Post by jcmaloney » Thu May 31, 2018 11:43 am

Just to add to the confusion.............

The "10% rule" has an exception. If a non-precious metal artefact has a precious metal part that could survive independently the non precious metal is Treasure by association.

Classic case being Copper Alloy Anglo Saxon/Early Medi copper alloy strapends with silver rivets that are less than 10% .As the rivet can survive "alone" the whole artefact can be considered as Treasure

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts ... /id/771220

Merneo
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:13 am
Location: Beds
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Treasure and coins confusion

Post by Merneo » Thu May 31, 2018 12:04 pm

Hi, Thanks for the replies

For clarification pre 300 yrs

This only is an issue if its apparent that what you find may have been left for recovery - and this may be considered treasure and needs reporting

Proximity

The age, mint, type of coins can infer proximity but can be fields wide if as said above rare coins same mint age

we are not just talking 10 -20 foot radius etc

Proximity may also be related to the pre 300 yr finds

it was just that bit in the summary that said except coins then 2 lines later started throwing in coins again - confusing

Thanks

Paul
Whites Coinmaster 2/DB Series 2
Sand Scoop Home Made As yet untested
Trowel and Spade

NCMD Member

User avatar
f8met
Posts: 1451
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 12:14 am
Location: Cambs and Suffolk
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Treasure and coins confusion

Post by f8met » Thu May 31, 2018 12:10 pm

When I said 2 modern fields I was inferring that there may have been a ditch between the fields and they were still relatively close but not in the same field. He was not forthcoming with too much detail and seemed disappointed when they were considered treasure as he wanted to keep them. Fields wide would not infer the same loss.

It could also be that a hoard could be in a ditch or buried and the soil scattered when it was dug out. If it seems obvious that they are all the same type from the same era and could well have come from the same hoard then it should be reported.
Dave

Deus, 9" black coil + Elliptical hf

2018 19 Hammered

Post Reply

Return to “Hoards and Treasure Finds”