Boy Finds £2.5M Gold Locket With Metal Detector

Instead of bottle caps and ridicule from his peers, 3-year-old James Hyatt found a locket worth millions with his metal detector. James and his dad found the gold locket last May in Essex. Since then the 500-year-old treasure has been appraised at around £2.5million. From the article: "James’s father Jason, 34, said: ‘My son is one of the luckiest people ever. If we go to the doctors he’ll put his hand down the side of the sofa and pull out a tenner.’"

Comments

./ Lost & Found

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost: near Essex, one gold locket. Reward for honest finder. Reply to AC. Thanks!

See body.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neat find.

Lucky

[Squiddie]

I wish I had found stuff like this with my metal detector. Instead I was always that weird kid with the metal detector.

Re:Lucky

[Pojut]

If you found a buried metal detector with a metal detector...would the universe implode?

Re:Lucky

[robot256]

If you found a buried metal detector with a metal detector...would the universe implode?

No...but then he'd have one for each hand! Double the nerdiness!

Re:Lucky

[Zedrick]

Weird kid? When I was in school, EVERYBODY wanted a metal detector. Nobody owned one though (partly because they were very expensive back then, partly because of legal reasons), but I imagine that if somebody did, he would have been considered the coolest kid in school.

I finally got my first metal detector about 5 years ago, and at least here (Sweden) it's not considered nerdy - when I go metal detecting on the beach I get lots of nice curious girls coming up to ask questions and try it. Seriously.

Re:Lucky

[camperslo]

If you found a buried metal detector with a metal detector...would the universe implode?

The buried metal detector would have also found you. You and the owner of the other detector would then become each others' slaves.

Re:Lucky

[Nick Number]

If you found a buried metal detector with a metal detector...would the universe implode?

Don't worry; for that you need a metal detector detector, AKA a meta-detector.

Re:Lucky

[loom_weaver]

I was the lucky kid to purchase my first metal detector, a basic Micronta version, from Radio Shack back in grade 6.

As I proudly searched the sand by the monkey bars I was the star of the playground pack. After several minutes of searching we hit the jackpot--we found a penny woohoo! Then two seconds later, another kid on the other side of the sandbox looked down and exclaimed, 'Hey look, I found a nickel!'.

Bah.

Re:Lucky

[King_TJ]

Heh.... I remember one of the kids I hung out with in grade-school had one of those Radio Shack metal detectors too. (I think it was the low-end orange plastic-handled model that just emitted various pitched tones to tell you how close you were to an object, vs. having any kind of actual meter on it.) We tried to go in to the local Dairy Queen, carrying the detector with us, to buy ice cream and drinks, and got kicked out because the manager was afraid of the device!

Re:Lucky

[kalqlate]

Quick... put a bottle cap where you dream they'll find it!

Re:Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but you could try googling it on google. Or even google google! I wonder what that would do...

Re:Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal detectors are illegal to use on other peoples land in Sweden and even if you find something like this locket on you own land it belongs to the government... Puts a bit of a damper on the metaldetector market.

Re:Lucky

[Paracelcus]

Really, metal detectors were illegal in Sweden?

When I was a teenager I wanted the Heathkit version but at $12.00 it was just too expensive.

Re:Lucky

[Firehed]

$12 was too expensive? When where you born... 1850?

I'm lucky too!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I go to the doctor's I put my hands down my pants and pull out a tenner too!

Re:I'm lucky too!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I go to the doctor's I put my hands down my pants and pull out a tenner too!

10cm~=3.94in. I'm sure the nurses are impressed.

Re:I'm lucky too!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a grower, not a shower, dude.

Re:I'm lucky too!

[Ginger Unicorn]

I'm wondering WTF going to the doctor's has got to do with finding money down a sofa? Can't he find money down his own sofa?

That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Scrameustache]

That 3 year old will now grow up KNOWING that there is actual buried treasure just under the surface... man, he'll think anything is possible if you just get the right tools and go do it!

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anrego]

A child with hope and enthusiasm and the belief that anything is possible.. oh man this can't be good :(

All kidding aside.. yeah.. I hope the "wow anything is possible" aspect of this takes precidence and he does something awesome for humanity. The other side is that he can probably live off that without doing anything for the rest of his life (assuming his parents give it to him).

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[c0d3g33k]

You may be on to something. We make our own luck, and maybe it's his curiosity that provides opportunities that work out well for him. As long as he's careful to avoid the fate of the curious cat, his approach might have some merit.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least he won't grow up thinking there's treasure in the empty hard vacuum of space. There are entire generations of people deluded into thinking so, due to Space Nuttery.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[JockTroll]

Wow, you're really mad at space enthusiasts, are you? What happened, loserboy? Did the jock who beat you up and swirled you in high school become an astronaut? The girl you lusted after (and who had a restraining order filed against you) ended up marrying him? Do people you know admire this spacefaring überjock who made your insignificant life miserable? And now, after mopping up floors all day (which is the only job available to unskilled loserboys like you), do you feel the bitterness rising as you jerk off your wizened cock to kiddie scat porn, silently cursing the people who put you down by simply being better? Well, keep in mind that it takes absolutely no effort being better than you by any measure. But your life must be horrible indeed: have you considered suicide?

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, there's no such thing as "luck."

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> A child with hope and enthusiasm and the belief that anything is possible

Don't worry, shortly the traumas adolescence will crush his spirit.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit gloating, Jock.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

A child with hope and enthusiasm and the belief that anything is possible.. oh man this can't be good

Well, we have public schools to deal with this very situation.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Lucky75]

4 million dollars isn't enough to be self sustaining

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience there is.. and I really hate it.

My sister really does fall under that category of "so damn lucky it pisses you off".

There is no rational explanation for it.. some people seem to just luck out a disproportionateamount of the time to what statistics should allow. Everyone knows that guy/girl who seems to win way more than their fair share of door prizes/chairty draws/dice rolls.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Scrameustache]

In my experience, there's no such thing as "luck."

In my dirtbiking-without-a-helmet experience: I've been DAMN lucky. Now I'm more prudent.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Nadaka]

It is if you are willing to live a modest lifestyle. Even if you only get a 1% return on your investments, that is still 40k a year, fairly close to the US national average income. 2% is 80k and that is a respectable middle class income. If you can manage 4% or 5% you are looking at a wealthy lifestyle forever.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[icebraining]

$4 million at 3.5% a year, is $140 000 / year.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

$4M isn't self sustaining?
Assume a 4% yield, which seems reasonable to me, and you gross $160K/year.
If you can't live off $160K/year, you're doing it wrong.
Even $1M is enough to retire on in a developed country.
For $200K you can retire and live like a king (making roughly 20 times the per capita income) in India.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anrego]

You could put it in the bank and never touch the principle. Even at 3% you're talking $120,000 a year. It's way more than I make.. and I live pretty comfortably.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, other than the part about mopping floors (I got an engineering degree), you're not half bad with your guesses. In fact, you're freakishly accurate.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Totenglocke]

Well you're also forgetting that he's only 3 years old - if he puts that money in the bank and doesn't touch it until he turns 18, even at a low interest rate of 2% per year he'll have $5,383,473.35. If he gets a 3% interest rate (not that hard to do), it would be $6,231,869.67 by the time he's 18. So yes, especially if he did that and then spent wisely (not frugally, but not blowing his money) he could easily get by never having to work again. Though, this is the UK, so I'm sure he'll take a hefty raping on the profits of that sale (he'd take a good raping in the US, just even worse in the UK with their higher tax rates). Realistically he'd probably get about $2 million after taxes (or less) so that's more like $3,115,934.83 by the time he's 18.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[babblefrog]

After inflation, he'll be able to take his whole family to dinner!

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Darinbob]

Since he's British, I suspect he isn't thinking that he can grow up to be president of the US.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Who could live on THAT? You can't even provide proper housing and care for your horses on that, let alone cover the costs of your jet and yacht. I have a hard time seeing how someone could even eat on such a paltry income.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[wastedlife]

As long as they are willing to eat at Denny's (or whatever the UK equivalent).

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[shadowrat]

This is all highly speculative. it's one thing to have a gold locket appraised at 2.4 million. It's another thing to actually find someone who will pay 2.4 million for it.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[vlm]

4 million dollars isn't enough to be self sustaining

Who cares? Its a hundred grand a year for 40 years.

Assuming you get a real job, and merely want some extra money for beer, travel, and women, thats fifty grand per year for 80 years.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[vlm]

You could put it in the bank and never touch the principle. Even at 3% you're talking $120,000 a year. It's way more than I make.. and I live pretty comfortably.

I'd like to know the catch of a bank that pays 3% above inflation. I'd like to find a bank that even pays as much as inflation. But what the heck do I know I just own GLD, SLV, and PRPFX for the last couple years.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[I'm not really here]

You're doing it wrong then...

So he loses $2 mil to taxes (I'm over exaggerating this to make a point)

$2,000,000 @ even a very modest 3% annual return = $60,000 per year.

With a decent, relatively safe mutual fund, you can get 6-8% return ($120,000 - $160,000 per year).

If you can't live off of that, you are seriously doing it wrong.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

Also he's curently a child. He could let it grow for a number of years without harvesting it for income. By the time he's 18 he the priciple on which he's earning interest could be conciderably higher resulting in a larger sustainable level of "income".

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you know...indeed.

The bank need not pay above inflation. If the bank pays exactly 3% of what was invested, thats $120,000 a year. One accustomed to living on $80,000 a year will still have plenty to reinvest. Not that reinvestment is much of an issue, since $120,000 per year will most likely remain a nice upper-class-level income for the entire term of this kid's life.

But of course, nobody would put millions in a bank. Mutual funds would, in fact, be safer and yield more.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Totenglocke]

I'm aware - I wasn't commenting on that, I was merely commenting on the person's assertion that you can't consider $4 million self-sustaining.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[clone52431]

You could put it in the bank and never touch the principle.

Or the principal, either.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Anonymous Coward]

The catch is you have to have an account with over 1mil in it...oh wait...

I think you'll find that banks can be very accommodating when dealing with large sums of money.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Jaysyn]

If you invest it well, it is.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Dunbal]

Not to mention I am sure the British tax people are just waiting to rape^H^H^H introduce this kid to the magical world of taxation.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[badboy_tw2002]

a) he's getting his nerdy phase over with early. Metal detecting probably won't be an issue.
b) He'll show up his first day of highschool in a Porsche, I'm sure he'll do fine.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Dunbal]

And what about inflation? You seriously think that someone will be able to live on 80k a year in 20 years time? Especially with all the major governments printing money like mad?

And don't even get me started on taxes. Actually this kid's best bet is to save the locket and auction it in 20 years' time, or whenever he's ready for the money.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Inda]

I had a look at dennys.com and I'm pleased to say:

We have nothing like that.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Mike Buddha]

Seriously, $140k/year would barely cover my Magic:The Gathering bill.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[SpinyNorman]

Sure there is, but the question is what is luck...

One type of luck is "preparation meets opportunity", i.e. "earned luck", but there is also just plain lucky "thin end of the bell curve luck"...

Consider if a million people spend all day putting quarters into slot machines.. the winnings distribution will be a bell curve, and some lucky buggers will have come out ahead of everyone else.

The same thing happens over the course of a lifetime. Some peope (by statistical happenstance) just happen to be lucky all the time. I remember the british actor Derek Nimo describing himself as being lucky this way.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[C0R1D4N]

Sorry Blood and Kidney pie and other fine British delicacies were not included on the Denny's menu

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Xayma]

A 1% return is likely to be above inflation. Also the kid has no choice, it was declared treasure, which means that it will be available for sale to a museum at the appraised value. In any case, because it is split 50-50 finder-landowner he wouldn't be able to keep it unless he could also agree with the landowner.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Alphathon]

I assume by public school you mean state school. In the UK public school usually means private school for some bizarre reason (apparently because they are founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control)

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Dunbal]

A 1% return is likely to be above inflation.

      Excuse me while I laugh. Wait - you probably believe the CPI, too.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[damien_kane]

Since he's British, I suspect he isn't thinking that he can grow up to be president of the US.

If Arnie gets his way, this kid can be.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[JesseMcDonald]

I assume the GP meant that "a 1% return" was in real terms (inflation + 1%), not that inflation is significantly less than 1%. Even the official CPI numbers, the lowest estimate of inflation you'll find anywhere, are higher than that (about 1.2%).

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[fishbowl]

There's not much in the way of UK law that stops his dad from spending some of it on booze and gambling the rest away.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[TapeCutter]

"Actually this kid's best bet is to save the locket and auction it in 20 years' time, or whenever he's ready for the money."

If they invest the money in a trust fund it will return a handsome profit over and above inflation. Sure you have to pay tax on the profit but it won't gain anything in real value if they stuff it under the mattress.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[petermgreen]

And what about inflation? You seriously think that someone will be able to live on 80k a year in 20 years time?
So you invest in something like real estate where both the capital value and the income are likely to follow inflation at least to some extent.

And of course the first thing you do is buy a house to live in yourself. Once you have no rent or mortgage to pay you can live on a relatively small ammount of money.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Gordonjcp]

No, just mushed cow bone and brain gruel, mushed chicken bone and brain gruel, and bland squishy "steak" smeared with cheap hot sauce.
American "cuisine" is the worst in the world, by far.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[trapnest]

Did someone beat you up with a model of the enterprise when you were a child? Get over it.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Gorobei]

6-8% return on a relatively safe mutual fund?

That hasn't happened in a decade, and we'll never see a long-term safe return of over 2% above inflation again: the world has changed since 1970.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[Phoghat]

"I can do any job, if I have the right tool"

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[VJ42]

b) He'll show up his first day of highschool in a Porsche, I'm sure he'll do fine.

"Highschool" equivalent here in the UK is from ages 11-16 and you can't get a provisional license until age 17, most people (I know, anyway) don't bother actually learning to drive until at least Uni (age 19\20 onwards), so he might show up at college(17-18) in a Porche, but certainly not High school (or secondary school as we call it).

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[drsquare]

That's assuming that the real estate he buys doesn't collapse as the credit dries up and the first-world middle-classes don't decline through global competition and depleting resources.

Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view

[badboy_tw2002]

Well, maybe he'll get dropped off in one then :)

Lucky ....

[Anrego]

I say we do this sitcom style!

Give it to the kid right now.. in cash. Let him spend it on whatever he wants under some weird circumstances where no adult is in a position to stop him! By the end he'll have learnt a valuable lesson about life or something heart warming like that! People still go for the whole coming-of-age personal growth thing right... RIGHT??!!??!!

I just hope they don't turn this into a damn reality TV show...

Re:Lucky ....

[Anonymous Coward]

There was actually a movie years ago about something like this - I think it was called "The Blank Check" or something similar. Although it is exactly what it says on the tin, the movie was about a kid of who found a blank check that was already signed and put some gigantic number on it and had fun during the whole movie until it caught up to him at the end or something like that.

Re:Lucky ....

[Machtyn]

What? The results of the kid's fallout or a reality metal detecting show? I can see it now... "Metal Detecting WARS" !!@!@121!!@ Next on TLC. (Right after Storage Unit Wars... I'm not kidding, I saw a commercial for the thing recently.)

Re:Lucky ....

[insertwackynamehere]

He put $1,000,000 which in the 90s was already wearing thin as a big number to anyone except a child and the bank owner was involved in shady dealings and thought that the kid was sent there by a gang to pick up the cash when he brought the check so he happily gave him the million in cash which obviously would normally not have been so easy.

IASPAR

[digitaldc]

"James was so excited when he realised he had found real treasure. Dad was blown away."

Right after that, James and his dad joined together in a happy little jig and sung "I've got a golden locket!" over and over and over...

Re:IASPAR

[Totenglocke]

After the final verse they promptly ran out and legally changed little Jimmy's name to "Charlie".

Aparently Rose didn't drop the locket at sea,

[Anonymous Coward]

She dropped it somewhere in England. Damn you Cameron!

Treasure Act of 1996

[Sonny Yatsen]

Under the British Treasure Act of 1996, such a find like this belongs to the Crown. However, the boy may be compensated as a reward by the Secretary of State.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/section/10

Section 4 of the Treasure Act

(1)When treasure is found, it vests, subject to prior interests and rights—

(a)in the franchisee, if there is one;

(b)otherwise, in the Crown.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[swanzilla]

Constitutional monarchy, for the loss.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Joe Snipe]

I like how you brits make your laws rhyme:

(1)When treasure is found it vests;
subject to prior rights and interests --

(a)if there is one in the franchisee,

(b)otherwise, to her Majesty!.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Anonymous Coward]

Queen Camilla will love it!

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[BitZtream]

They were trying rather hard to reclaim Titanic rather than let it get raped by treasure hunters.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[istartedi]

At current exchange rates, 2.5 million pounds is about $4 million.

With that much money on the line, I would consider the possibility of flagrantly violating the law, and moving someplace nice that will legally protect me in exchange for a smaller tax.

Of course, he's not a corporation so the other sovereigns will probably just tell him to piss off; but it's worth researching.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Sonny Yatsen]

And the boy will also live in the forest with a band of merry toddlers who may accost the rich and give to the poor.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[g1zmo]

FTFA:

The reliquary has been declared treasure trove at an inquest, meaning the proceeds of its sale will be shared between James’s family and the landowner.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[magarity]

Note that while this particular piece was ruled a treasure, this isn't automatic. It depends on how rare of an artifact it one finds. This is apparently a specialty religious item. If it were a a more plain medallion then it might not be ruled a treasure even if it was gold and the same age.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[roman_mir]

The hell with that, they should grab that locker and skip the country.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. So basically, if you find worthless crap, you get to keep it, but as soon as it's valuable, it automatically belongs to the government, who then might magnanimously decide to throw you a few crumbs from the table for doing the actual grunt work of searching for it?

Nice. :/

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[interval1066]

I like how you Brits live in a country where such finds are possible. Here in the States if we're lucky we might find an arrow head. Worth a few bucks, MAYBE.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[RapmasterT]

At current exchange rates, 2.5 million pounds is about $4 million.

With that much money on the line, I would consider the possibility of flagrantly violating the law, and moving someplace nice that will legally protect me in exchange for a smaller tax.

He should have called it a "old family heirloom" and not a "treasure find". But then governments being what they are, they'd probably ask for back inheritance taxes for 10 generations.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Machtyn]

Yeah, I think meteorite hunting or beach combing for rings is more profitable, if possible. If you get REALLY lucky, you might find some coins washed up from a 1600's boat wreck.

My one time search in FL this year netted me a penny, a dime, and a toy among the normal trash.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[eefsee]

From the article: "The reliquary has been declared a treasure trove at an inquest, meaning the proceeds of its sale will be shared between James's family and the landowner." Sounds fair enough.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Monkeedude1212]

Well if you're looking along the coast like they probably were in England, you have a chance of finding something of value. You may not find something 500 years old, but perhaps 300 or so from when the first settlers came across.

Canada got kind of lucky in that there are actual Viking remnants along our Eastern Coast. I think that's impressive. It also suggests something odd that they never made the return trip, otherwise you think the Western world might have known about the Americas if the Scandinavians already knew about it. (So Christopher Columbus might have known something was there). To put it in a historical perspective - L'Anse Aux Meadows (which is the only entirely confirmed Norse Settlement in Canada) - is expected to have been settled around 1003 AD. That's 63 years before the battle of Hastings - which is considered by many to be the most influential battle in the history of England. To think - one of the reasons the Anglo-Saxons lost the Battle of Hastings was because just weeks prior they were fighting the Vikings at the Battle of Fulford. Were they aware of the New World at that point? Would they have bothered trying to Conquer England if they had known they could have settled this entire continent? Seems like one of those focal hinging points in history to me.

I think I got a bit off track there - anyways, there should be plenty of shipwrecks along the coast to find things. You might be able to find some stuff from the WW2 era - I hear a bit of sea battles actually took place along the US Coast.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 interesting

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Anonymous Coward]

Phew, I was wondering how the royal family would pay for that wedding.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[ArsonSmith]

He'll grow up to be Obama and the Democrats?

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Anonymous Coward]

The Crown != government. The Crown usually allows finders to split the proceeds with the landowner, provided someone like the British Museum buys it.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[itwerx]

"For all intensive purposes"

Completely OT, but had to chuckle at the grammar-nazi-bait sig. :)

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[interval1066]

"- I hear a bit of sea battles actually took place along the US Coast."

Uh, you're kidding, right? The only hit on US soil since 1814 was Pearl Harbor, and Hawaii wasn't a state then, and of course 9/11 10 years ago. At best a Japanese sub MAY have sneaked into San Francisco harbor or Puget Sound during the war.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[Monkeedude1212]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II

Definately a Few Atlantic 'Covert' operations listed there.

Re:Treasure Act of 1996

[interval1066]

"Six people (five children and a woman) became the only deaths due to enemy action to occur on mainland America during World War II when one of the children tampered with a bomb from a balloon near Bly, Oregon and it exploded."

Well, at the risk of splitting hairs, of all the "covert actions" listed we have this gem under the Japanese balloon attacks:

"Six people (five children and a woman) became the only deaths due to enemy action to occur on mainland America during World War II when one of the children tampered with a bomb from a balloon near Bly, Oregon and it exploded."

The Nazi spy ring started before the war, and strictly speaking wasn't an attack, your examples are hardly a refutation of the premise as I understood it. Five kids and a woman, while deplorable, is not exactly the engagement I had in mind.

For the rest of his life...

[xenapan]

This boy will be looking for buried treasure to get him through the other half of his life.

Re:For the rest of his life...

[spiffmastercow]

He's only going to live to be 6?

Correct Link

[Sonny Yatsen]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/contents

Whoops, here's the proper link. The other was just section 10 of the Treasure Act.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

But what is the legal definition of treasure?

Re:Correct Link

[Sonny Yatsen]

It is defined in the first section of the law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/section/1

Meaning of 'Treasure'

(1)Treasure is—

(a)any object at least 300 years old when found which—

(i)is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;

(ii)when found, is one of at least two coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time and have that percentage of precious metal; or

(iii)when found, is one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time;

(b)any object at least 200 years old when found which belongs to a class designated under section 2(1);

(c)any object which would have been treasure trove if found before the commencement of section 4;

(d)any object which, when found, is part of the same find as—

(i)an object within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) found at the same time or earlier; or

(ii)an object found earlier which would be within paragraph (a) or (b) if it had been found at the same time.

(2)Treasure does not include objects which are—

(a)unworked natural objects, or

(b)minerals as extracted from a natural deposit,

or which belong to a class designated under section 2(2).

The object found was at least 300 years old and "(i)is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;". Thus, it will likely fall under the definition found in the statute.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

Man. That's weak. Finders keepers!

Re:Correct Link

[Menkhaf]

"Professor, what's another word for 'pirate treasure'?" "Well, I think it's booty. Booty, booty, that's what it is.

FTFY

Re:Correct Link

[ColdWetDog]

Not a good world for pirates these days, I'm afraid.

All this legislation crap would take all of the fun out of it. You wouldn't have '15 men on dead man's chest', you'd have a dozen lawyers. Just not the same.

Re:Correct Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the item already being declared a treasure trove by the coroner, it looks like the British Museum will likely buy the thing and the proceeds will be split between the kid and the landowner. Apparently this is not uncommon. Sky news has (unsurprisingly) a better article than the daily fail.

Re:Correct Link

[xaxa]

The intention is that treasure (as defined, i.e. the historical and cultural artefacts of the UK), can go in a museum to be appreciated by everyone rather than some rich guy's pocket.

(The British Museum is free to visit, and a must-see if you're ever in London.)

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

Yes, because now of course, the rich will just hand it over, rather than use the lucrative black market. And the tax-writeoff benefit doesn't exist either. It's a bit like posting a sign outside a bank that says "no bank robbers". All this really does is remove the legitimate route for people to donate to the museum, and remove the incentive for treasure hunting. The actual rich guy who's pocket something like this would sit in -- if he's the type to not donate it -- certainly isn't going to follow the law either. The law is for poor people.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

Basically, if I were this kid, and aware of the law, I would melt it down and just sell it as gold. Only because of the law. Otherwise, I would sell it intact.

Re:Correct Link

[xaxa]

That would be stupid and selfish, it's certainly worth a lot less as gold than as the object (culturally and economically). The boy is forced to sell it, not forced to give it away. £1.25 million (the boy's share, as it wasn't his land) still looks like a good incentive to me.

(If it were solid, which it isn't, it would weigh 120g and have a scrap value of £1000-£3000 depending on purity.)

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

I got a news flash for ya - most people aren't looking for things with metal detectors out of selfless reasons. So he's forced to sell it? That's a bit more reasonable, but still quite statist and authoritarian.

Re:Correct Link

[xaxa]

Are you suggesting £1.25 million isn't sufficient incentive? Remember this is only for "treasure", i.e. old objects with sufficient precious metal content. You can do what you like with things less than 300 years old -- perhaps that figure explains our difference in attitudes. It's also only for things of national cultural significance, if there are already several in museums it's less likely to be declared treasure.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

The statute didn't appear to have this wiggle room you speak of. I am curious where you got the 1.25M from though -- the statute doesn't specify a specific reward. Why can't they just say, "You're reward is 1$." [No, I'm not gonna figure out how to make a pound symbol :)]

Without a reward, I'd take the surefire legal, tax-declarable method of melting it down. Or I'd sell it on the black market. I'd never just give away gold that I found (i.e. if it was required to be repossed by The Crown and I got nothing). This is likely true for 99% of humanity, most especially the poor [which is what, 90 of the world%?]. It's not immoral either. Every old trinket isn't magically the property of all humanity, to stick in a museum and be gawked at. It's only value for most people will be the photograph that some people look at; 99.99% of the world will never go in the specific museum it ends up in. If the museum doesn't allow photography, they won't even get a picture. But in the end, it's just something to look at for a minute and go "neat". A webpage with a high-resolution photo would be just as culturally informative. I know what King Tut looks like without having had to see it in a museum. . .

Re:Correct Link

[xaxa]

This isn't "every old trinket", that's the whole point, and nothing is magically property anyway -- we decide collectively what is or isn't property.

Most museums allow photography in most places, except flash is sometimes banned.

I'm going to stop arguing though, you're clearly determinedly anti-government regardless of what the government has done.

The majority of British people will support this decision, including (judging by the ones I've met, and a quick look at a forum) metal detectors.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

Of course. Tyranny of the majority: There are more people without treasure than with, therefore we petition our government to steal it from those who find it, and redistribute it to everyone. I believe in socialism with universal health care, roads, and lots of other things, but not being able to own something I found myself is b.s.

The majority of people have believed in a lot of things, and it's often been the wrong thing. I mean, this is the country that invaded most of the world ;)

Re:Correct Link

[VJ42]

but not being able to own something I found myself is b.s.

He found it on someone else's land. Why should it belong to him & not the land owner? This law solves that problem by saying that it belongs to the state and he & the land owner have to split the proceeds of the reward (it's sale). It's far better than protracted civil action between the two parties whilst preserving the cultural heritage of the nation. It seems like a win-win situation to me, no pointless court cases & all parties are rewarded. What's the problem?

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

That doesn't seem to be what the statute pasted a few messages above said, which is what I was responding to.

Re:Correct Link

[VJ42]

That doesn't seem to be what the statute pasted a few messages above said, which is what I was responding to.

The way it works in practice is that anything found and declared "treasure" (i.e. old enough or otherwise culturally significant) is automatically the property of the crown, in return the crown usually gives a reward split between the finder and the land owner, the value of the reward is usually the price they get at sale from a museum or similar institution. As I said, if not for this law there would either be countless civil cases about who gets the treasure and\or reward or the crown would take it without giving one. Neither of these are desired outcomes, the law is a compromise.

Re:Correct Link

[drsquare]

Property law by definition is statist and authoritarian.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

It seems that way. But I have to wonder if, pre- that act, the law tilted a certain way. For example, if it was always the property of the owner of the land it was found on, then this law steals half their profit away in the name of compromise. If it was always the property of the person who found it, then this law steals half their profit away. Minus lawyer fees, of course. :) Compromise is cool and all, but I don't want to compromise on my half of the booty. Nobody does.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

Without property law, every property owner in the country would be subject to banditry and anarchy. Something that gives freedom and rights to people at large doesn't strike me as exclusively statist. Eminent domain is statist and authoritarian. Property law is for the people. Indeed, the right to own property used to be something only for aristocracy, before people revolted and gained these rights.

Re:Correct Link

[VJ42]

It seems that way. But I have to wonder if, pre- that act, the law tilted a certain way. For example, if it was always the property of the owner of the land it was found on, then this law steals half their profit away in the name of compromise. If it was always the property of the person who found it, then this law steals half their profit away. Minus lawyer fees, of course. :) Compromise is cool and all, but I don't want to compromise on my half of the booty. Nobody does.

Totally understandable, however if all of it was the property of the land-owner, there would be no reason for people to hunt for treasure and you would have got zero because the guy with the metal detector didn't search your land. He needs an incentive too.
You could make the argument that the metal detector people should all draw up contracts with all the individual land owners but what land owner would want to pay for a lawyer to draw up or check a contract every time some nutter with a metal detector wanted to search his land? Again, you get zero profit as no treasure is found because you decide it's not worth the hassle of letting him on your land for the remote chance he finds something.
This law incentivises both detectors and land owners so that a profit can actually be made, there would be far less treasure found without it. It actually makes it easy for ordinary people to get a fair and just solution without having to involve lawyers and courts, with the bonus that the rest of the country also benefits because our heritage is preserved. IMO it's a rare example of a good law.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

Your explanation is actually very compelling. Thank you.

Re:Correct Link

[VJ42]

Your explanation is actually very compelling. Thank you.

Woah, Woah, this is slashdot. You can't come here and admit the other person might have a point!

You're meant to argue semantics about how this law is loosely worded and could be abused, or perhaps go really libertarian claim that this is government intervention is artificially driving down the cost of treasure by increasing supply. I was saving replies for both of those. ;p

Anyway, shock over, thank you for having a civil and courteous debate rather than degenerating into the name-calling and general douchery that slashdot debates usually end up in. It's been a pleasure.

Re:Correct Link

[ClioCJS]

I'm an argumentative stubborn type; I think it says more about your compelling points than me, hehe.

Though, I think -- why can't basic, vetted contracts be provided for free on the internet for various things most people do? [including buying a house]. Oh yeah, lawyers wouldn't like that! But wait! This law isn't good for lawyers too! I guess either way, the lawyers lose. And the old way, they didn't. And lawyers do suck. Heh :)

Don't open that locket

[utoddl]

Don't open that locket. It's probably a horcrux. Volde--DON'T SAY THE NAME-mort.. [Oops]

Re:Don't open that locket

[Sectoid_Dev]

At least it got them out of those god awful woods and kicked the plot into motion.

Metal detector at the beach

[Drakkenmensch]

Not so crazy now, is it?

Re:Metal detector at the beach

[RapmasterT]

Not so crazy now, is it?

I used to work right on Waikiki beach, and every morning I'd see these old guys out there with their thousand+ dollar detectors and sifters.

every time I'd ask on of these guys what they find, they'd say "keys...lots and lots of keys".

Re:Metal detector at the beach

[linzeal]

Been doing it since the 1980's, still keep it in my camping gear but I'm too busy to do it on the weekends any more. Biggest thing I found - that I actually kept - was an old spear gun on the Oregon coast. Most valuable was an 1800's wedding ring with an old 'Mine Cut' 3/4 carat diamond with sapphires in a Utah campground, 4000 bucks.

Re:Metal detector at the beach

[Stray7Xi]

Bah first rule of digging up pirate treasure is that you don't tell people you just found pirate treasure. Just be glad you didn't know the truth or they would have had to run you through with a cutlass (which they also found).

The Queen Is A Lizard!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Queen Is A Lizard!

No dice.

[Anonymous Coward]

The find belongs to the Crown.

Re:No dice.

[spun]

The find belongs to the Crown.

I believe that the division of the hoard between the crown, the finder, and the land owner depends on whether the find was grave goods or a stash, whether the land owner gave permission to search, and a host of other things. As I understand it, UK law is still a confusing patchwork of barely compatible local, regional, and national laws of various historic origins.

Re:No dice.

[lgw]

I thought they cleaned all that legal mess up recently? IIRC it comes down to: if the find wasn't on someone else's private property, some museum will say arbitrarily "we get it" or "nah, he can have it".

Sad fact

[SnarfQuest]

If this follows lottery winners, the sad fact is they will probably blow through the entire thing in less than a year.

Found what with what?!?

[snspdaarf]

He found a locket with his metal detector?

Wow. Mrs. Metal Detector is gonna be some pissed!

Rotary engraving?

[Teun]

When looking carefully at the photo I would say some of the larger elements of the flowers left and right of the cross seem to have been made with a rotary engraving tool, not necessarily a tool I'd associate with 500 years ago...

Re:Rotary engraving?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, another internet expert.

Re:Rotary engraving?

[CrashandDie]

When looking carefully at the photo I seemed to see the lovechild of Jamie Oliver and Ricky Gervais on the left, and a small version of Richard Hammond on the right.

Well... I say "small", but...

Re:Rotary engraving?

[multipartmixed]

You're right! It's been photoshopped! Just like that sword in xkcd!

Re:Rotary engraving?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crystal Skull?

Re:Rotary engraving?

[Rigrig]

Also, the reflections are all wrong.

Better Title

[bill_mcgonigle]

this is effectively the "Please Melt Down any Treasures You Find Act of 1996".

Re:Better Title

[coolsnowmen]

I understand what you are saying, but it is worth 2.5m pounds because of it's age and history, not because of the raw cost of materials. It is likely worth A LOT less in terms of $/kg.

Re:Better Title

[Anonymous Coward]

And get what? $600 for the 1/2 oz of gold? Yeah, that'd be smart.

Re:Better Title

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right, but unless the compensation is really significant and guaranteed, there might be risk in it. To your point, though, the black market seems much more likely.

Re:Better Title

[Firehed]

I assume it's kind of hard to sell something on the black market once news of you discovering it has reached Slashdot.

Boy should work for TSA

[Tablizer]

If we go to the doctors he’ll put his hand down the side of the sofa and pull out a tenner.

They sure keep their choirs in strange places in the UK.

Re:Boy should work for TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Your money may talk, but the GBP sings...

Kids these days...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, isn't he supposed to return it to it's owner? There's probably a 530 year old woman still looking for it. Kids these days...

Re:Not news worthy

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem angry. Perhaps more medication would help?

Groucho

[ThanatosMinor]

What the locket was doing with a metal detector, I'll never know

Luck: well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone seen any 3 legged, two headed aliens in teh vicinity? And, did the father and mother enter any lotteries to give them the right to bear children? On a side note, people are going bonkers over a new yam being sold by lanky, grizzled , beak faced street vendors...

I found an arrowhead!

[Anonymous Coward]

I found one while digging a deep hole behind the barn in Arkansas of all places. I still have it. Mom took it one day and kept it for a decade or so before giving it back as a gift. I have it to this day, a great symbol of her love knowing I would have lost it if left to my own devices back when I was 10.

YOU were lucky? I'm accused of murder evary duy!

[Anonymous Coward]

So there I was minding my own business walking along the beach with my metal detector, and just as I pull metal chain out of the sand this mutter-strikin' COP has the gaul to waltz his gun-drawn fat-feet up to me and say "Sir, you're under arrest for suspicion of burying dead bodies of people you murdered in the sand."

So I say I'm only looking for metal on the beach, this dead body attached to this jewelry chain is what I rightly found with this here metal detector in my hands.

Then his buddy runs up and hits me with the Taser saying I was resisting arrest, and the original guy said "should we fuck him up?"

So I took their lives and I took their ride, and drove to another beach in the middle of the night. Ever since then, when I'm burrying bodies, it gives me 10 seconds of pause from my accusers to decide whether they are going to hear my plight when they least realize I'm going to take another life...

Yeah... should you fuck me up? Give yourselves time to think about it. Should you fucke me up? Fuck me up--fuck me up-fuck mee uppp?

Plunder

[noseblunter]

What's more likely, finding a 500 year-old treasure by chance, or being a secret family of sleeper pirates? Sleeper pirates, argh.

Overdue Pedantry

[Anonymous Coward]

If you substitute "intents and purposes" for "intensive purposes", perhaps your sig won't sound like it was rendered by G.W. Bush. It'll make some sense in English, as well. ...Just sayin'