Indeed, the article is not quite correct that the cheese was lost.
We know that Pepys buried this cheese, along with other items, because he wrote about it in his diary [1].
It was not mentioned again (or was it?). So based on evidence we don't know what happened to the cheese, but Pepys most likely dug it up along with the other items he had buried (he had also buried wine and office papers).
We opened a 7 year old cheese for Thanksgiving that was perfect as it is a cheese deliberately packaged to age and allow tyrosine development (which people seem to like for its bite). I've had a 30+ year version of the same cheese which was very edible and enjoyable, though you had to like a cheese with some bite. Pairs nicely with a white wine.
Would 400 year old or older cheese be good? Main thing I'd worry about is brucellosis or other contaminants.
They say they think it's bizarre, but don't compare to how it's done anywhere else! If it's so bizarre how are other countries like the United States doing it?
The American Civil War wasn't very long ago, but I think if there are no known owners then buried gold like the Confederate Gold would be considered treasure in England even though it isn't old, so they must have similar issues.
Edit: We had some indirect dealings with the QLTR recently over some shares in commonly owned land that didn't have clear ownership - the QLTR basically responded with "nothing to do with us" which was good!
Does anyone know what the other side of the issue is?
The fact that this article paints a totally rosy picture, does not mention downsides to the system, only quotes government side sources (they couldn't even find a metal dectectorist to say "yeah it's not perfect but it's good enough"?) is setting off red flags for me.
Well when the new rules came in, there was a massive increase in reported finds - around tenfold. That seems to indicate the detectorists quite like it, landowners seem to approve of their share too. There was a news story that beggared belief quite recently of a pair of detectorists who found a major Viking hoard, sold bits piecemeal trying to to go the illicit sale route, but got caught and now face years in prison and no bounty.
The biggest problem, that I'm aware of, is in giving a representative commercial value to found treasure trove, many museums struggle to afford. There have been many calls for museums and trusts to get more formal government assistance to pick up major finds, though they can get lottery assistance I think. Here's a piece from nearly 20 years ago, when I think the new rules were still quite recent:
>Well when the new rules came in, there was a massive increase in reported finds - around tenfold. That seems to indicate the detectorists quite like it, landowners seem to approve of their share too.
Compliance doesn't mean they like it, just that the risk reward of telling the state to shove it isn't worth telling the state to shove it (after all, this is just a hobby for most people).
What I'd like to hear is someone who was metal detecting back before the law change describing how things changed and the pros cons. I googled around but couldn't find anything (which is unsurprising considering how niche this is and the timeline involved).
From a practical point of view, the increase in reported finds is a pretty good indicator of success. After all we're balancing the interests of detectorists, land owners and the public. Success isn't necessarily about completely satisfying any of them.
If an 'antique' gold coin is more valuable than its weight in gold there may be practical benefits in complying with the law as it may be difficult (and less profitable) to sell these coins without the correct paperwork. Indeed, I suppose that any serious dealer will want to check the status of these coins, and any dodgy dealer will buy at a discount.
My questions would be what oversight is there of the coroners' decisions and what ensures their qualifications?
A scientific discovery might have no gold or silver but be much more valuable at sale than shiny metals. A coroner who decides entirely based on his/her knowledge of the value of the find risks making incorrect decisions based on a lack of specialist knowledge.
A coroner is basically a type of judge. They have a court, they can summon a jury (but obviously you don't need a jury to make treasure decisions, that's for stuff like an inquest after a person dies in police custody to avoid even the appearance of a cover up by the state) they can force witnesses to turn up and give evidence to them.
So their qualifications are primarily legal like other judges (in the UK you can't get a job as judge by having the Head of State just give it to you, our judiciary actually is politically independent rather than just having a pretence)
Coroners must be legally qualified solicitors or barristers, or a Fellow of the Charted Institute of Legal Executives, and must have 5 years worth of experience [1].
They are appointed by local authorities with the consent of the Chief Coroner and the Lord Chancellor.
For oversight, you must submit a judicial review to the High Court. A senior judge there will decide the lawfulness of the coroner's actions [2]. You used to be able to appeal to the Chief Coroner instead of seeking judicial review, but this mechanism was removed by the Public Bodies Act 2011 [3].
29 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 75.2 ms ] threadWe know that Pepys buried this cheese, along with other items, because he wrote about it in his diary [1].
It was not mentioned again (or was it?). So based on evidence we don't know what happened to the cheese, but Pepys most likely dug it up along with the other items he had buried (he had also buried wine and office papers).
[1] https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1666/09/04/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45233347
We opened a 7 year old cheese for Thanksgiving that was perfect as it is a cheese deliberately packaged to age and allow tyrosine development (which people seem to like for its bite). I've had a 30+ year version of the same cheese which was very edible and enjoyable, though you had to like a cheese with some bite. Pairs nicely with a white wine.
Would 400 year old or older cheese be good? Main thing I'd worry about is brucellosis or other contaminants.
It says that it was buried in a time of crisis.
It is a comment on the practice of "burying goods with the intention of recovery", which is part of the definition of treasure.
> It is still at large, buried somewhere under modern London.
I'd love to read more about these, even if they're mostly routine. 1200 a year seems like quite a bit! You could call the show "Coroner's corner"
The American Civil War wasn't very long ago, but I think if there are no known owners then buried gold like the Confederate Gold would be considered treasure in England even though it isn't old, so they must have similar issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_and_Lord_Treasurer%2...
Edit: We had some indirect dealings with the QLTR recently over some shares in commonly owned land that didn't have clear ownership - the QLTR basically responded with "nothing to do with us" which was good!
Finding stuff on public land is I assume more complicated. Maybe the police sort it?
The fact that this article paints a totally rosy picture, does not mention downsides to the system, only quotes government side sources (they couldn't even find a metal dectectorist to say "yeah it's not perfect but it's good enough"?) is setting off red flags for me.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/21/detectorists...
The biggest problem, that I'm aware of, is in giving a representative commercial value to found treasure trove, many museums struggle to afford. There have been many calls for museums and trusts to get more formal government assistance to pick up major finds, though they can get lottery assistance I think. Here's a piece from nearly 20 years ago, when I think the new rules were still quite recent:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/15/education.arts
Compliance doesn't mean they like it, just that the risk reward of telling the state to shove it isn't worth telling the state to shove it (after all, this is just a hobby for most people).
What I'd like to hear is someone who was metal detecting back before the law change describing how things changed and the pros cons. I googled around but couldn't find anything (which is unsurprising considering how niche this is and the timeline involved).
A scientific discovery might have no gold or silver but be much more valuable at sale than shiny metals. A coroner who decides entirely based on his/her knowledge of the value of the find risks making incorrect decisions based on a lack of specialist knowledge.
So their qualifications are primarily legal like other judges (in the UK you can't get a job as judge by having the Head of State just give it to you, our judiciary actually is politically independent rather than just having a pretence)
They are appointed by local authorities with the consent of the Chief Coroner and the Lord Chancellor.
For oversight, you must submit a judicial review to the High Court. A senior judge there will decide the lawfulness of the coroner's actions [2]. You used to be able to appeal to the Chief Coroner instead of seeking judicial review, but this mechanism was removed by the Public Bodies Act 2011 [3].
---
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/section/2
[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/office-c...
[3] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/40