Template:Did you know nominations/Horncastle helmet fragment
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Horncastle helmet fragment
[edit]
The Horncastle helmet fragment
- ... that a 4 cm (1.6 in) long fragment of an Anglo-Saxon helmet (pictured) was bought for £15,000? Source: Treasure Annual Report 2002, pp. 53, 145.
- Reviewed: Interstellar (film)
Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 09:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC).
Article is long enough and new enough, well cited, and neutrally written, hook is interesting and cited to online reliable source. QPQ done. Ready to go, but I am not sure about the image: it claims a Creative Commons license, and the photographer is named, but is it in the public domain, as the Flickr source is unclear? This may be beyond me, someone else will be better placed to judge. Moonraker (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Moonraker. The image is cropped from File:Fig._41_Horncastle.jpg, which has been released under an appropriate license both here and on Flickr. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- That looks all right, Usernameunique, but others will take it from here. Moonraker (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Moonraker, image has been reviewed and verified. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is ready to go, but no doubt whoever moves it on will check the image again. Moonraker (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Coming to promote this, I could not find the sum of £15,000 mentioned in the source, although it did verify the identity of the purchaser. Even if the source had mentioned a valuation, the actual price would presumably have been negotiated between buyer and seller. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, it's on page 145 (#41), which is similar to the "prices realized" sheet appending an auction catalog. Per Treasure Act 1996 (and the preceding common law), treasure belongs to the Crown. The act allows for a "reward" to be paid to the finder, which "must not exceed the treasure’s market value" (see Section 10). Market value is determined by the independent Treasure Valuation Committee. The finder becomes the happy recipient of this money if the Crown decides to take ownership of the treasure (which otherwise remains the property of the finder), but is not entitled to bargain over the terms. An analogy in US law might be eminent domain, where an individual is entitled to "just compensation" but does not have much avenue to bargain for price. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so the finder gets the "value" of the treasure, but does the Crown necessarily sell it to the purchaser at the valuation price. I would have thought that the actual sale price would have been a matter for negotiation. If several buyers were interested, it might be higher, for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, pet law (as quoted above), it can't be higher than market value. I'm not sure how multiple interested parties are weighed—the Shorwell helmet is one where one party was interested but dropped out in favor of the British Museum—but it would not be by whether they are willing to spend more. I imagine their proposals are weighed independent of the money (other than as to whether they are able to afford the item), and once approved, they pony up the valuation. The government doesn't purchase the finds at the valuation price and then auction them to the highest bidding museum. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so the finder gets the "value" of the treasure, but does the Crown necessarily sell it to the purchaser at the valuation price. I would have thought that the actual sale price would have been a matter for negotiation. If several buyers were interested, it might be higher, for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, it's on page 145 (#41), which is similar to the "prices realized" sheet appending an auction catalog. Per Treasure Act 1996 (and the preceding common law), treasure belongs to the Crown. The act allows for a "reward" to be paid to the finder, which "must not exceed the treasure’s market value" (see Section 10). Market value is determined by the independent Treasure Valuation Committee. The finder becomes the happy recipient of this money if the Crown decides to take ownership of the treasure (which otherwise remains the property of the finder), but is not entitled to bargain over the terms. An analogy in US law might be eminent domain, where an individual is entitled to "just compensation" but does not have much avenue to bargain for price. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Replacing tick now that I understand the position more clearly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
