MDF Metal detecting & metal detectors resource: a friendly forum to discuss all your detecting needs and promoting responsible metal detecting for all.
Its only classed as Treasure if a museum wants to acquire it, otherwise you get it back
It has already been established that the museum DOES want to acquire it. That is what the OP said at the start of the thread in case you missed it.
Well excuse me, if you took the time to read my post properly, I was answering the post from Mucky, [where he said he was surprised, they classed it as treasure though]
And i quoted him with my reply, going one step further, far too many people in this hobby think the British Museum wish to aqcuire the find when thats not the case, more often than not it is the local museums in the area, where the item was found, and wish to aqcuire the find, some museums may have 10 gold rings in their collections, whereas others may have none, so wish to aqcuire the find for their collection, a point i was was merely putting across, but you obviously missed my point me thinks
Thanks for all your interest and comments on the gold posy ring I found. Cant wait until the travel restrictions are lifted so I can get out detecting again as I found the ring on my permission in county Durham. Good luck on your detecting trips.
Its only classed as Treasure if a museum wants to acquire it, otherwise you get it back
It has already been established that the museum DOES want to acquire it. That is what the OP said at the start of the thread in case you missed it.
Well excuse me, if you took the time to read my post properly, I was answering the post from Mucky, [where he said he was surprised, they classed it as treasure though]
And i quoted him with my reply, going one step further, far too many people in this hobby think the British Museum wish to aqcuire the find when thats not the case, more often than not it is the local museums in the area, where the item was found, and wish to aqcuire the find, some museums may have 10 gold rings in their collections, whereas others may have none, so wish to aqcuire the find for their collection, a point i was was merely putting across, but you obviously missed my point me thinks
That isn't how it read to me. So don't jump up and down. I simply thought you'd missed the bit where that was mentioned. People often scan through threads and miss something further up. Mucky has been detecting long enough to know how the treasure process works. he is not a newbie.
dig-dog wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:52 pm
How many posy rings do they need?
DD
As many as they can sell on for a profit I daresay.
Yes, I've read those stories as well, rather defeats the notion that they are being saved for the nation....
Trust me, as a detectorist who has a career working with collections, archives and museums the vast majority of these stories are exactly that - stories. Products from the good old rumour mill and disgruntled folk who have a bone to pick with museums. In the past it is true, museums sometimes did sell on items surplus to their collections but this was primarily a feature of the earlier to mid 20th century and had largely died out by the 70s/80s.
In brief, the ethical, moral and financial repercussions for museums who sell on items in 2020 outweigh the financial benefit hundreds or even thousands of times, to the point it could cause them to close. Accredited museums that adhere to the protocols laid out by ICOM, ACE and UNESCO risk losing all funding and potentially closure. It is not something any museum would risk for an object worth hundreds of pounds.
I'll make a separate reply to Littleboot (which I would encourage you to read as well) as such a comment requires a fairly robust evidence-based response
dig-dog wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:52 pm
How many posy rings do they need?
DD
As many as they can sell on for a profit I daresay.
I mean in short, and being polite as I possibly can muster - when I read comments like this I give them the most almighty eye-roll. Toilet paper isn't in shortage any more but tin-foil for the hats certainly appears to be during these most interesting times! Permit me to elaborate.
Museums in Britain operating in the year 2020 cannot simply sell on objects. Let's deal with the legal aspects first-under ethical codes from ICOM, ACE and UNESCO (as well as the Valletta convention) museums cannot sell on finds for benefit without serious repercussions: ethically, morally and legally. If they do, they risk a) losing their funding/charitable status, b) losing membership of professional accredited bodies, c) potentially having to close their doors as a result of public backlash. The government could also bring legal proceedings concerning misuse of funding. I would urge you to look strongly at the Sekhemka statue sold by Northants museum in 2014 and the resulting fallout from that as a good case study of how bad the consequences can be.
But let's say the latter didn't exist, why would a museum sell an object or objects? Well, there have been a number of articles in the last few years within the heritage sector that have explored this issue where it has been raised. Broadly speaking, a number of county councils have considered dispersing elements from their collections to cover funding shortfalls. However, when you actually look at what they are considering moving on it is virtually exclusively (in every case I was able to look at) pieces from collections of painted or sculpted art produced primarily in the last 50-200 years. These are pieces often worth MILLIONS of pounds that would single-handedly cover a funding issue. So selling on Treasure finds would make no sense from this point of view because they're often worth only tens/hundreds of pounds to low thousands of pounds. Are you suggesting that museums are selling on low-value items acquired under the Treasure Act to supply the staff biscuit tin? As stated, makes no sense-because these things would barely cover any meaningful portion of funding shortfalls, you'd literally have to sell every single Treasure find in your collection even put a dent in it. Another very good reason for museums not to sell on Treasure finds (even if they could) is that these are often acquired with help from the general public and museum 'friends' who sit on the governors board or steering committee. That would undermine both their trust and the public trust. Let's also bring back in those pre-existing ethical conditions, is any museum going to risk losing millions in funding for the sake of flogging a £500 ring so it can undertake some minor maintenance issue? Nope.
But let's ignore that as well and say that museums are selling on Treasure finds. Which leads me onto point three- who are these objects allegedly being sold to? Shadowy hugger mugger transactions on the black market, providing private collectors with pieces to add to their collections? Balderdash. This is equivalent to people claiming the 1969 moon landings were faked, the effort to fake it and the number of people who would have to be 'in' on the hoax exceeds the undertaking in the first instance. If museums across this country (including the BM) were selling on items from their collections, it would require the wholesale silence of the entire management, curators, assistants, researchers and probably even people within DCMS. That's thousands of employees, and to top that off we live in a culture of whistleblowing and instances where FOI requests can be made with great ease. Such a practice of selling on objects would be a national scandal, and if it were happening, it would be far too difficult to hide it. As a practical point, objects have a tendency to re-appear on the market after a period of time due to various factors. I have never ever seen an instance where an object bought by a museum appeared on the open market and was subsequently recognised-and in the internet age where we have google images and online auction or sale catalogues the probability of it being recognised as much higher. There is also the question of provenance-which if a Treasure find would have to be stated! There have been instances where rogue curators have stolen and sold on items or participated in inside jobs-but these are extremely infrequent and I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of cases I've heard of.
Have museums in Britain in the past sold objects then? Of course they have, I'm not going to deny it has never taken place as that wouldn't be true. But dispersal of collections and items in them is something that took place in the early to mid 20th century, with the happenstance increasingly rare after the 70s. The incipience of global heritage protection initiatives from the 40s onwards and professional museum conservation groups in the last 40-50 years has brought the standards of museum practice to a high level indeed. I can find no evidence nor example of a Treasure find acquired under the Act of 1996 which was bought by a museum and then subsequently sold on for a profit (or for any money).
Probably going to take flak from this but as someone whose career (and much of his life) has focused around/been dedicated to archives, collections, objects, antiquities and the law/heritage crime it rather annoys me when silly throwaway comments like this get made.
dig-dog wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:52 pm
How many posy rings do they need?
DD
As many as they can sell on for a profit I daresay.
I mean in short, and being polite as I possibly can muster - when I read comments like this I give them the most almighty eye-roll. Toilet paper isn't in shortage any more but tin-foil for the hats certainly appears to be during these most interesting times! Permit me to elaborate.
Museums in Britain operating in the year 2020 cannot simply sell on objects. Let's deal with the legal aspects first-under ethical codes from ICOM, ACE and UNESCO (as well as the Valletta convention) museums cannot sell on finds for benefit without serious repercussions: ethically, morally and legally. If they do, they risk a) losing their funding/charitable status, b) losing membership of professional accredited bodies, c) potentially having to close their doors as a result of public backlash. The government could also bring legal proceedings concerning misuse of funding. I would urge you to look strongly at the Sekhemka statue sold by Northants museum in 2014 and the resulting fallout from that as a good case study of how bad the consequences can be.
But let's say the latter didn't exist, why would a museum sell an object or objects? Well, there have been a number of articles in the last few years within the heritage sector that have explored this issue where it has been raised. Broadly speaking, a number of county councils have considered dispersing elements from their collections to cover funding shortfalls. However, when you actually look at what they are considering moving on it is virtually exclusively (in every case I was able to look at) pieces from collections of painted or sculpted art produced primarily in the last 50-200 years. These are pieces often worth MILLIONS of pounds that would single-handedly cover a funding issue. So selling on Treasure finds would make no sense from this point of view because they're often worth only tens/hundreds of pounds to low thousands of pounds. Are you suggesting that museums are selling on low-value items acquired under the Treasure Act to supply the staff biscuit tin? As stated, makes no sense-because these things would barely cover any meaningful portion of funding shortfalls, you'd literally have to sell every single Treasure find in your collection even put a dent in it. Another very good reason for museums not to sell on Treasure finds (even if they could) is that these are often acquired with help from the general public and museum 'friends' who sit on the governors board or steering committee. That would undermine both their trust and the public trust. Let's also bring back in those pre-existing ethical conditions, is any museum going to risk losing millions in funding for the sake of flogging a £500 ring so it can undertake some minor maintenance issue? Nope.
But let's ignore that as well and say that museums are selling on Treasure finds. Which leads me onto point three- who are these objects allegedly being sold to? Shadowy hugger mugger transactions on the black market, providing private collectors with pieces to add to their collections? Balderdash. This is equivalent to people claiming the 1969 moon landings were faked, the effort to fake it and the number of people who would have to be 'in' on the hoax exceeds the undertaking in the first instance. If museums across this country (including the BM) were selling on items from their collections, it would require the wholesale silence of the entire management, curators, assistants, researchers and probably even people within DCMS. That's thousands of employees, and to top that off we live in a culture of whistleblowing and instances where FOI requests can be made with great ease. Such a practice of selling on objects would be a national scandal, and if it were happening, it would be far too difficult to hide it. As a practical point, objects have a tendency to re-appear on the market after a period of time due to various factors. I have never ever seen an instance where an object bought by a museum appeared on the open market and was subsequently recognised-and in the internet age where we have google images and online auction or sale catalogues the probability of it being recognised as much higher. There is also the question of provenance-which if a Treasure find would have to be stated! There have been instances where rogue curators have stolen and sold on items or participated in inside jobs-but these are extremely infrequent and I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of cases I've heard of.
Have museums in Britain in the past sold objects then? Of course they have, I'm not going to deny it has never taken place as that wouldn't be true. But dispersal of collections and items in them is something that took place in the early to mid 20th century, with the happenstance increasingly rare after the 70s. The incipience of global heritage protection initiatives from the 40s onwards and professional museum conservation groups in the last 40-50 years has brought the standards of museum practice to a high level indeed. I can find no evidence nor example of a Treasure find acquired under the Act of 1996 which was bought by a museum and then subsequently sold on for a profit (or for any money).
Probably going to take flak from this but as someone whose career (and much of his life) has focused around/been dedicated to archives, collections, objects, antiquities and the law/heritage crime it rather annoys me when silly throwaway comments like this get made.
So, how many do they need? A simple question not answered. Roll your eyes as much as you want and when you have returned to your peramabulator perhaps you could furnish us all with an answer.
DD
E-trac 13" ultimate coil.
Full XP Deus 11" coil / hf elliptical coil
Deus 2 11” coil/WS6/remote.
So, how many do they need? A simple question not answered. Roll your eyes as much as you want and when you have returned to your peramabulator perhaps you could furnish us all with an answer.
DD
Happily. I mean, I think I made it fairly clear that my response was focused on the suggestion that the BM is in some sort of finds flogging cabal rather than anything else. But, since you're keen to know I'd be delighted to furnish you (and anyone else curious to know) with such information.
In short-depends on several factors: the acquiring policy of the relevant museum, the item itself and any extenuating factors. Posy rings are common finds (comparably) as Treasure items but they are also very displayable, have a low impact storage/conservation need, can potentially be linked to specific people in some rare instances. Importantly, they are also tangible in public memory due to the fact that rings relating to declarations of love or affection are worn to this day as a historic constant.
I don't work in the BM and am not in contact with their curators so couldn't possibly comment on what numbers they possess or the exact decision making process behind this instance. However, my guess would be that the inscription and decorative style are unusual enough within the corpus of examples that they wish to add an example to their collection as a representative piece.
TLDR: Objects from the past relating to present concepts are appealing. This is an example which is sufficiently different and unusual compared to the norms that they wish to acquire it so as to have as representative a collection as possible.
The question really was how many have they taken into their possession over the years? And to what end? Surely only so much can be learned from them and is it really necessary to keep them?
I now understand that you are not really in the position to answer my original question but thank you for your input
DD.
E-trac 13" ultimate coil.
Full XP Deus 11" coil / hf elliptical coil
Deus 2 11” coil/WS6/remote.
dig-dog wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:20 pm
I am aware of the above.
The question really was how many have they taken into their possession over the years? And to what end? Surely only so much can be learned from them and is it really necessary to keep them?
I now understand that you are not really in the position to answer my original question but thank you for your input
DD.
As i pointed out above, they are not all claimed by the BM, most are claimed by local museums in the area where the finds are made, some museums might have several, whereas some might not have any, I have a permission where three medieval gold rings were found in the last year or so, and all were disclaimed...Why ? Because the museum in Q couldnt afford them as theyd paid out £10.000 recently for another one
littleboot wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:33 pm
As many as they can sell on for a profit I daresay.
Yes, I've read those stories as well, rather defeats the notion that they are being saved for the nation....
Trust me, as a detectorist who has a career working with collections, archives and museums the vast majority of these stories are exactly that - stories. Products from the good old rumour mill and disgruntled folk who have a bone to pick with museums. In the past it is true, museums sometimes did sell on items surplus to their collections but this was primarily a feature of the earlier to mid 20th century and had largely died out by the 70s/80s.
In brief, the ethical, moral and financial repercussions for museums who sell on items in 2020 outweigh the financial benefit hundreds or even thousands of times, to the point it could cause them to close. Accredited museums that adhere to the protocols laid out by ICOM, ACE and UNESCO risk losing all funding and potentially closure. It is not something any museum would risk for an object worth hundreds of pounds.
I'll make a separate reply to Littleboot (which I would encourage you to read as well) as such a comment requires a fairly robust evidence-based response
Mmmm,... I seem to recall a case about a decade ago where Northampton County Council sold off some ancient Egyptian stuff for around $20m usd. On a personal note me and a detecting partner found some broken fragments of an Anglo Saxon silver brooch, we were told is was possibly part of brooch found on the Isle of Wight in the mid 1890's, there were pictures and line drawings but when I asked could they try and fit the bits back together I was told the items were no longer in the possession of the state so that was no longer possible!
I'm not saying flogging off of finds is commonplace, because it clearly is not, and a very high value item is likely to be the stuff offloaded, but in my opinion NOTHING should be sold off, ever.....
littleboot wrote: Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:33 pm
As many as they can sell on for a profit I daresay.
I mean in short, and being polite as I possibly can muster - when I read comments like this I give them the most almighty eye-roll. Toilet paper isn't in shortage any more but tin-foil for the hats certainly appears to be during these most interesting times! Permit me to elaborate.
Museums in Britain operating in the year 2020 cannot simply sell on objects. Let's deal with the legal aspects first-under ethical codes from ICOM, ACE and UNESCO (as well as the Valletta convention) museums cannot sell on finds for benefit without serious repercussions: ethically, morally and legally. If they do, they risk a) losing their funding/charitable status, b) losing membership of professional accredited bodies, c) potentially having to close their doors as a result of public backlash. The government could also bring legal proceedings concerning misuse of funding. I would urge you to look strongly at the Sekhemka statue sold by Northants museum in 2014 and the resulting fallout from that as a good case study of how bad the consequences can be.
But let's say the latter didn't exist, why would a museum sell an object or objects? Well, there have been a number of articles in the last few years within the heritage sector that have explored this issue where it has been raised. Broadly speaking, a number of county councils have considered dispersing elements from their collections to cover funding shortfalls. However, when you actually look at what they are considering moving on it is virtually exclusively (in every case I was able to look at) pieces from collections of painted or sculpted art produced primarily in the last 50-200 years. These are pieces often worth MILLIONS of pounds that would single-handedly cover a funding issue. So selling on Treasure finds would make no sense from this point of view because they're often worth only tens/hundreds of pounds to low thousands of pounds. Are you suggesting that museums are selling on low-value items acquired under the Treasure Act to supply the staff biscuit tin? As stated, makes no sense-because these things would barely cover any meaningful portion of funding shortfalls, you'd literally have to sell every single Treasure find in your collection even put a dent in it. Another very good reason for museums not to sell on Treasure finds (even if they could) is that these are often acquired with help from the general public and museum 'friends' who sit on the governors board or steering committee. That would undermine both their trust and the public trust. Let's also bring back in those pre-existing ethical conditions, is any museum going to risk losing millions in funding for the sake of flogging a £500 ring so it can undertake some minor maintenance issue? Nope.
But let's ignore that as well and say that museums are selling on Treasure finds. Which leads me onto point three- who are these objects allegedly being sold to? Shadowy hugger mugger transactions on the black market, providing private collectors with pieces to add to their collections? Balderdash. This is equivalent to people claiming the 1969 moon landings were faked, the effort to fake it and the number of people who would have to be 'in' on the hoax exceeds the undertaking in the first instance. If museums across this country (including the BM) were selling on items from their collections, it would require the wholesale silence of the entire management, curators, assistants, researchers and probably even people within DCMS. That's thousands of employees, and to top that off we live in a culture of whistleblowing and instances where FOI requests can be made with great ease. Such a practice of selling on objects would be a national scandal, and if it were happening, it would be far too difficult to hide it. As a practical point, objects have a tendency to re-appear on the market after a period of time due to various factors. I have never ever seen an instance where an object bought by a museum appeared on the open market and was subsequently recognised-and in the internet age where we have google images and online auction or sale catalogues the probability of it being recognised as much higher. There is also the question of provenance-which if a Treasure find would have to be stated! There have been instances where rogue curators have stolen and sold on items or participated in inside jobs-but these are extremely infrequent and I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of cases I've heard of.
Have museums in Britain in the past sold objects then? Of course they have, I'm not going to deny it has never taken place as that wouldn't be true. But dispersal of collections and items in them is something that took place in the early to mid 20th century, with the happenstance increasingly rare after the 70s. The incipience of global heritage protection initiatives from the 40s onwards and professional museum conservation groups in the last 40-50 years has brought the standards of museum practice to a high level indeed. I can find no evidence nor example of a Treasure find acquired under the Act of 1996 which was bought by a museum and then subsequently sold on for a profit (or for any money).
Probably going to take flak from this but as someone whose career (and much of his life) has focused around/been dedicated to archives, collections, objects, antiquities and the law/heritage crime it rather annoys me when silly throwaway comments like this get made.
So, how many do they need? A simple question not answered. Roll your eyes as much as you want and when you have returned to your peramabulator perhaps you could furnish us all with an answer.
DD
I can't believe Wuntbedruv started this reply using the words "in short"!
Big rolling eyes from me.
Why do people think that by replying with an essay it somehow enforces their point!
Mucky wrote: Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:58 pm
Why do people think that by replying with an essay it somehow enforces their point!
Point one. How do you know what he thinks. That's obviously your thoughts, not his.
Point two. That was an eloquent and we'll written reply regardless of length. Sometimes difficult and complicated subjects can't be watered down to a couple of sentences. I'm sure you'd agree with that.
Point three. I'm sure you would also agree that people are different. Some are more expressive, articulate, intelligent and deliver a greater nuanced account of themselves. Should they be penalized or spoken of in a derogatory manner for that?
