Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boy Finds £2.5M Gold Locket With Metal Detector

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-that-glitters dept.

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.’"

128 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Lucky by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Lucky by Pojut · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    2. Re:Lucky by robot256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

    3. Re:Lucky by Zedrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Lucky by camperslo · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Lucky by Nick+Number · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    6. Re:Lucky by loom_weaver · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    7. Re:Lucky by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      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!

    8. Re:Lucky by kalqlate · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:Lucky by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    10. Re:Lucky by Firehed · · Score: 1

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

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  2. That's gonna be an interesting world view by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Anrego · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

    4. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Lucky75 · · Score: 1

      4 million dollars isn't enough to be self sustaining

      --
      DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    6. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by icebraining · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    9. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Anrego · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    11. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by babblefrog · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Darinbob · · Score: 1

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

    13. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by wastedlife · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    14. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by shadowrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by vlm · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by vlm · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    18. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    19. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by clone52431 · · Score: 1

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

      Or the principal, either.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    20. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      If you invest it well, it is.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    21. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Inda · · Score: 1

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

      We have nothing like that.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    25. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

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

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    26. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      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.

    27. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

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

    28. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Xayma · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Alphathon · · Score: 1

      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)

    30. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      A 1% return is likely to be above inflation.

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

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    31. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      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.

    32. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      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%).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    33. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    34. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    35. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    36. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      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.

    37. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by trapnest · · Score: 1

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

    38. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      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.

    39. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by Phoghat · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    40. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    41. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by drsquare · · Score: 1

      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.

    42. Re:That's gonna be an interesting world view by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

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

  3. Lucky .... by Anrego · · Score: 1

    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...

    1. Re:Lucky .... by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      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.)

    2. Re:Lucky .... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      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.

  4. IASPAR by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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...

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:IASPAR by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  5. Treasure Act of 1996 by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      Constitutional monarchy, for the loss.

      --
      0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
    2. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    3. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by BitZtream · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by istartedi · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    6. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by g1zmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.       -REK, Jr.
    7. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by magarity · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

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

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    9. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    10. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by eefsee · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    14. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    15. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by itwerx · · Score: 1

      "For all intensive purposes"

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

    16. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "- 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.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    17. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

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

      Definately a Few Atlantic 'Covert' operations listed there.

    18. Re:Treasure Act of 1996 by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  6. Correct Link by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      But what is the legal definition of treasure?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    2. Re:Correct Link by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    3. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Man. That's weak. Finders keepers!

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    4. Re:Correct Link by Menkhaf · · Score: 1

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

      FTFY

      --
      A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
    5. Re:Correct Link by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Correct Link by xaxa · · Score: 1

      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.)

    7. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    8. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    9. Re:Correct Link by xaxa · · Score: 1

      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.)

    10. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    11. Re:Correct Link by xaxa · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      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. . .

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    13. Re:Correct Link by xaxa · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      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 ;)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    15. Re:Correct Link by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    16. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

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

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    17. Re:Correct Link by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    18. Re:Correct Link by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Property law by definition is statist and authoritarian.

    19. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    20. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    21. Re:Correct Link by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    22. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Your explanation is actually very compelling. Thank you.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    23. Re:Correct Link by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    24. Re:Correct Link by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      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 :)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  7. Don't open that locket by utoddl · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Don't open that locket by Sectoid_Dev · · Score: 1

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

  8. Re:For the rest of his life... by spiffmastercow · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's only going to live to be 6?

  9. Re:I'm lucky too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    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.

  10. Metal detector at the beach by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Not so crazy now, is it?

    1. Re:Metal detector at the beach by RapmasterT · · Score: 2, Informative

      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".

    2. Re:Metal detector at the beach by linzeal · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    3. Re:Metal detector at the beach by Stray7Xi · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

  11. Sad fact by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  12. Found what with what?!? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    He found a locket with his metal detector?

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

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  13. Re:No dice. by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  14. Rotary engraving? by Teun · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Rotary engraving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Awesome, another internet expert.

    2. Re:Rotary engraving? by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      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...

    3. Re:Rotary engraving? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

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

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    4. Re:Rotary engraving? by Rigrig · · Score: 1

      Also, the reflections are all wrong.

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
  15. Boy should work for TSA by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  16. Re:No dice. by lgw · · Score: 1

    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".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  17. Re:Better Title by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. Re:Better Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

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

  19. Groucho by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 1

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

  20. Re:Better Title by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  21. Re:I'm lucky too! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  22. Plunder by noseblunter · · Score: 1

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

  23. Re:Better Title by Firehed · · Score: 1

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

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?