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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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:For the rest of his life...

[spiffmastercow]

He's only going to live to be 6?

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.