Former PM's face seen in 2,000-year-old coin[UK][Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher]

It’s not ‘stolen’ a reward is provided both to the landowner and the discoverer. I doubt it will be declared treasure trove though, because it isn’t unique. I detect the fact that you disapprove, but frankly, most people in this country, including collectors like me, agree with treasure trove laws because it gives a certain measure of protection from people who would otherwise destroy valuable archeological evidence of our heritage for a quick buck....

That is really dumb.

You agree with the rule that the UK government can declare anything its own with minimal compensation? Wow. I sure don’t. If I find an old coin here in the states, I should be able to keep it. Luckily, that’s still the case here as far as I know.

So the British government gets to steal the coin from the finder, right?

No, not "steal".

The legal concept of "treasure trove" has been a part of English common law since the time of Edward the Confessor.

A treasure trove may broadly be defined as an amount of gold, silver, gemstones, money, jewellery, or any valuable collection found hidden underground or in places such as cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable. However, both the legal definition of what constitutes a treasure trove and its treatment under law varies considerably from country to country, and from era to era. ... It has been said that the concept of treasure trove in English law dates back to the time of Edward the Confessor .. Treasure trove had to be hidden with animus revocandi, that is, an intention to recover it later. If an object was simply lost or abandoned (for instance, scattered on the surface of the earth or in the sea), it either belonged to the first person who found it[12][15] or the landowner according to the law of finders, that is, legal principles concerning the finding of objects. For this reason, the objects found in 1939 at Sutton Hoo were determined not to be treasure trove – as the objects were part of a ship burial, there had been no intention to recover the buried objects subsequently.[16] The Crown had a prerogative right to treasure trove, and if the circumstances under which an object was found raised a prima facie presumption that it had been hidden, it belonged to the Crown unless someone else could show a better title to it.

Today, a finder fares much better. For almost a century, British law has provided for paying "the full antiquarian value of objects which had been retained for national or other institutions such as museums".

The finder gets his money.

The British people get to view their patrimony in a museum.

If a national museum does not want the object, the finder gets to keep it and can try to sell it on his own.

Just had to share this.

Other strange links ....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2093511/posts?page=28#28

hmmmm

No, the law on treasure trove is defined by law. The government cannot claim ‘everything’ arbitrarily as it’s own...

You agree with the rule that the UK government can declare anything its own with minimal compensation? Wow. I sure don’t.

What makes you think that the compensation is "minimal".

Landowners are often uninterested in rewards for treasure found on their land: they regard themselves as trustees of their property, and are mainly concerned that the treasure should find a good home. A good example of this came up recently when a finely decorated Iron Age mirror was discovered by a treasure hunter in the west country. He reported it promptly to the county museum and then claimed a reward of the market value, which he claimed to be over £50,000; The landowner, who had been quite happy to donate the mirror to the museum, was outraged when such a huge sum was paid to the treasure hunter - who was on his land without permission

50,000 British Pounds = 88,335 US Dollars