Metal detectorist finds rare gold coin.

[PRTPAULSMETAL]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rare ... -pw39bwf2q

[oldartefact]

Probably because the gold Leopard is extremely rare and they want it.

A TVC value will then be given to the coin(s) !! and it will not find its way onto the open market if it had been a single find.

You will see more of this if the Treasure Act Review adds single gold coins to its Treasure capture list.

One aspect this find confirms is just how damaging a power harrow is to the casual loss archaeological small finds in the plough soils.

This was really my point about the circumstances of the find.

It is also a bit odd that the Treasure Act Review suggested 1344 as the cut off date for the acquisition of single gold coins as there is a 500 year gap between the date of the previous British gold coins (Anglo Saxon Mancus) and the rare issues of Edward III.

It is almost as though, after the fiasco with the last Leopard which went to auction, they want to be able to grab any more that turned up. I can see the logic: ("Half a million quid for a leopard at auction? Hells bells we can't afford that". Later. "Oh look, here's another one that was found with a detector. It's a bit bent so £11.75 should be about right!"

My understanding is that if the coin/s dont meet the detailed stipulations laid-out under the treasure act, then they wont qualify under the treasure act. If the coins are deemed to be treasure under the act, and the owner/finder want to dispute this they can raise a legal challenge. I would assume that the finder/owner have already taken a view on whether or not they agree with proceedings to date??? Lets hope everything works out okay, whichever way the axe falls???

[fred]

Probably because the gold Leopard is extremely rare and they want it.

A TVC value will then be given to the coin(s) !! and it will not find its way onto the open market if it had been a single find.

You will see more of this if the Treasure Act Review adds single gold coins to its Treasure capture list.

One aspect this find confirms is just how damaging a power harrow is to the casual loss archaeological small finds in the plough soils.

This was really my point about the circumstances of the find.

It is also a bit odd that the Treasure Act Review suggested 1344 as the cut off date for the acquisition of single gold coins as there is a 500 year gap between the date of the previous British gold coins (Anglo Saxon Mancus) and the rare issues of Edward III.

It is almost as though, after the fiasco with the last Leopard which went to auction, they want to be able to grab any more that turned up. I can see the logic: ("Half a million quid for a leopard at auction? Hells bells we can't afford that". Later. "Oh look, here's another one that was found with a detector. It's a bit bent so £11.75 should be about right!"

My understanding is that if the coin/s dont meet the detailed stipulations laid-out under the treasure act, then they wont qualify under the treasure act. If the coins are deemed to be treasure under the act, and the owner/finder want to dispute this they can raise a legal challenge. I would assume that the finder/owner have already taken a view on whether or not they agree with proceedings to date??? Lets hope everything works out okay, whichever way the axe falls???

The first step is to make representations at the inquest. The Coroners are an independent lot and will usually make the right decision if the case is correctly presented.

[geoman]

Yes you are correct Fred in your analysis.

The BM were caught out with the single find of the Coenwulf Gold Mancus where they had to pay an open market value for it after blocking its export. That is probably the rationale behind the proposal to capture single gold coins as Treasure as well.

The expectation would seem to be that a TVC valuation would have been less if the Mancus had been captured as Treasure at the time. Such coins are so rare that no TVC valuer or expert will have seen one before and with the best will in the world will be unable to value it. The only true test is the value reached at an open and fair auction with collectors and dealers from around the world taking an interest.

Naturally HMG will defend the TVC in its valuations and compared to most other countries it is a good system. However it has its faults though no official body would ever suggest that. Time and again disclaimed items are sold at an open auction at prices well above their TVC valuation so it would seem clear that they dont get it right all the time. However despite the ability to challenge valuations finders and landowners are limited in what they can do especially with items of great rareity or complexity for which there are few or no comparable items having been sold on the open market.

Single rare gold coin finds have often sold for eyewatering sums at open auctions well beyond the financial capbilities of museums and examples of gold Leopards have been amongst these. Hence attempts to capture these through the Treasure Act can only be for their numismatic value and not any archaeological value. Single coins tell you nothing more than a rich person lost a coin whilst out walking of travelling. They are therefore random casual losses.

Once defined as Treasure these coins will be captured and it is not rocket science to read between the lines to understand the motivations for doing so. Depending upon the final defintion of a single gold coin to be captured as Treasure, many lesser examples in terms of rareity will be so taken and valued by the TVC making them more readily obtainable by local and regional museums who express and interest.

Such a change could effectively render any single gold coin in a collection as potential undeclared treasure should they be sold on the open market without an unequivocal provenance. Time to photograph and have an official record on the UKDF database or elsewhere as a safeguard before the change.