Boy Finds £2.5M Gold Locket With Metal Detector 169
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.’"
Lucky (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you found a buried metal detector with a metal detector...would the universe implode?
Re: (Score:3, 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!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Lucky (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
That's gonna be an interesting world view (Score:3, 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!
Re: (Score:3, 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).
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
A 1% return is likely to be above inflation.
Excuse me while I laugh. Wait - you probably believe the CPI, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$4 million at 3.5% a year, is $140 000 / year.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, $140k/year would barely cover my Magic:The Gathering bill.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they are willing to eat at Denny's (or whatever the UK equivalent).
Re: (Score:2)
We have nothing like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If you invest it well, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky .... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Treasure Act of 1996 (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 [legislation.gov.uk]
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.
Correct Link (Score:2)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/contents [legislation.gov.uk]
Whoops, here's the proper link. The other was just section 10 of the Treasure Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Correct Link (Score:5, Informative)
It is defined in the first section of the law:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/section/1 [legislation.gov.uk]
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Property law by definition is statist and authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 withou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 wa
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"Professor, what's another word for 'pirate treasure'?" "Well, I think it's booty. Booty, booty, that's what it is.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Treasure Act of 1996 (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!.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (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.
Re: (Score:2)
"- 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll grow up to be Obama and the Democrats?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"For all intensive purposes"
Completely OT, but had to chuckle at the grammar-nazi-bait sig. :)
Re:Treasure Act of 1996 (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The hell with that, they should grab that locker and skip the country.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Metal detector at the beach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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".
Re: (Score:3, 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).
Found what with what?!? (Score:2)
Wow. Mrs. Metal Detector is gonna be some pissed!
Rotary engraving? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You're right! It's been photoshopped! Just like that sword in xkcd!
Boy should work for TSA (Score:2)
They sure keep their choirs in strange places in the UK.
Groucho (Score:2)
Re:For the rest of his life... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)