Can someone explain at exactly what point does old garbage become a relic?

When does trash become treasure? As soon as someone is willing to pay for it.

"The the LESS they think of you, the better. Not the "more".

I agree with this 100%. If you you want to keeep detecting don't do do things that make people notice you.

To answer the basic question. When someone is willing to pay for the relic otherwise it's junk and you have to pay to have it disposed of.

The other day I was detecting in the National forest and found old well. I got a flashlight and looked inside - to my surprise there was a deer, a rabbit and a nice little old man down below that had all fallen in! Well I managed to fish out the deer and the rabbit, but the old man no had no ID - I left him down there just in case!

Tom_in_CA said:

Keith: The British system is often heralded as some sort of win-win handholding between archies, the govt., and md'rs. Held up as a supposed example of "something the USA should consider".

But it is widely misunderstood. It is NOT some sort of "carte-blanche" to metal detect cool off -limits areas. You guys in England have SCORES of off-limit "scheduled" sites. Right ? For example: Try detecting Stonehenge and see what happens.

The only reason such a thing exists there in England, is because the laws that resources under the ground belong to the crown (oil, mineral wealth, etc...). Not so in the USA. Over here, if you discover oil on your land, you'll be rich like in the Beverly Hillbillies. Over here, if you discover a cache on farmer Bob's land, it's totally between you and farmer bob how to split it. With no govt. intrusion.

So to try to recommend such a thing here would go down hill VERY quickly. The LAST thing you want is more govt. intrusion. And no, such a system would NOT open up any land to md'ing, and merely be swatting more hornet's nests to "put you on the radar" as something to regulate or hate or .... make more rules about.

The the LESS they think of you, the better. Not the "more".

Click to expand...

From East of the Pond
Tom,
Oh dear! I did'nt herald our system as a supposed example of summat the US should consider – explanation of the scheme can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Antiquities_Scheme
And it is voluntary!
It certainly gives no carte blanche to detect anywhere without permission. I'm not sure why you would think it does.
The majority of detecting finds are identified and returned to the finder. Items submitted as treasure - gold(but not single coins), and silver artifacts are assessed by the British museum . If deemed to be treasure a valuation is given and a museum can bid for the item. The received value will be split 50/50 between the finder and the landowner. If the BM decides it's not treasure – return to finder. Then if it has a market value , finder and landowner
then come to an agreement, but again usually split 50/50.
Scheduled sites. Yep,loads of 'em. There as protection for sites of historic or archaeological importance. I agree that some of them are of dubious relevance, but if sites such as Stonehenge were open to detectorists, there would be uproar. Controlled detecting as part of an archy investigation has been carried out on some sites
Surely you have such protected sites in the US ?
Tom, I was impressed you knew my main farmer is called Bob.(True) News travels fast, dunnit?

Nice talking to you,old son
KeithM

Sailor Return said:

... I did'nt herald our system as a supposed example of summat the US should consider –...

Click to expand...

Keith, good to hear from you. Perhaps you didn't mean to insinuate that it was something the USA should consider. Sure. But whenever the subject comes up, someone (like you see here in #3 and #4 of this thread) will hint that the USA should come up with something . Eg.: "permits" or "databases", etc... (which will certainly end up making things worse). And then when the UK system comes up right on the heels of that conversation (as happened with your post), I wonder if that just adds fuel to the notion .

Hence yes, I know you perhaps weren't bringing it up in regards to USA solutions as to definitions of "relic", but .... just wanted clarify that any such thing would not let USA hunters "keep more relics" or "have a love affair with archies", etc....

Tom_in_CA said:

Keith, good to hear from you. Perhaps you didn't mean to insinuate that it was something the USA should consider. Sure. But whenever the subject comes up, someone (like you see here in #3 and #4 of this thread) will hint that the USA should come up with something . Eg.: "permits" or "databases", etc... (which will certainly end up making things worse). And then when the UK system comes up right on the heels of that conversation (as happened with your post), I wonder if that just adds fuel to the notion .

Hence yes, I know you perhaps weren't bringing it up in regards to USA solutions as to definitions of "relic", but .... just wanted clarify that any such thing would not let USA hunters "keep more relics" or "have a love affair with archies", etc....

Click to expand...

I feel misrepresented by that Tom. Here's all that I said in post #4 about a proposed database of finds:

I like your idea of a national database for finds, however, the problem that I see with that is people who enter information could enter incorrect information (intentionally or unintentionally) and really cause a problem. Unlike Wikipedia, I don't see anyway to prevent the posting of incorrect data if it is open to the general public. If that problem could be overcome, I would be all for it.

Click to expand...

I didn't propose "permits" or "a database", or anything else that would be detrimental to metal detecting. On the contrary, I pointed out the difficulties associated with a database. I understand you are a zealot, but don't paint me with that broad brush, because it doesn't apply to me.

Crackerjack said:

...I didn't propose "permits" or "a database",....

Click to expand...

Hey there crackerjack. I just saw that you "liked the idea of a national database". Didn't mean to mis-represent your position.

Tom_in_CA said:

Hey there crackerjack. I just saw that you "liked the idea of a national database". Didn't mean to mis-represent your position.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll take that as an apology, and thank you.

As far as a "database", this forum in a way, serves as a global database of finds, as a lot of people, probably including yourself, post their finds here; although many don't give the exact location, which is the key thing for historians. So without a way to get absolutely honest, accurate locations and descriptions, in a searchable database, it is largely useless to a researcher. At least, that is my opinion, and it is worth exactly what you paid me for it.

Crackerjack said:

... So without a way to get absolutely honest, accurate locations and descriptions, in a searchable database, it is largely useless to a researcher. ...

Click to expand...

Yes. Archies 1000 yrs. from now might view forum show & tell posts, to aid in their knowledge of history. HOWEVER, it will be spotty. Because the items are "ripped from context". I am so grief-stricken, that I am going to rush out right now and replant all the stuff I've ever found. Then my conscience can be absolved of all guilt.

Tom_in_CA said:

Yes. Archies 1000 yrs. from now might view forum show & tell posts, to aid in their knowledge of history. HOWEVER, it will be spotty. Because the items are "ripped from context". I am so grief-stricken, that I am going to rush out right now and replant all the stuff I've ever found. Then my conscience can be absolved of all guilt.

Click to expand...