Historical Coin Hoard Found Buried Under Dorset Cottage

[ramonmercado]

Likely a Civil War hoard.

Historical coin hoard found buried under Dorset cottage​

8 hours ago

A buried hoard of coins dating to the 16th and 17th Centuries has been found during renovation work on a cottage.

The cache of more than 1,000 gold and silver coins was discovered under an earth floor at South Poorton, Dorset.

One of the property's new owners, Robert Fooks, was digging with a pickaxe by torchlight when he found the trove in a pottery bowl.

Auctioneers hope to sell the collection for between £15,000 and £30,000.

Becky Fooks
The hoard was found in a pottery bowl buried in a bare earth floor

Mr Fooks' wife Becky said her husband was spending evenings in the cottage after work to increase the height of the room and install underfloor heating before they moved in.

She said: "He came across a mass of coins covered in mud and put them in a bucket. He didn't stop and study them. He's a worker - when he's intent on something he cracks on."

Mrs Fooks said it was only the following day that she examined the coins and realised how old they were.

"You can clearly see the date. Some of the gold coins were easy to read, really clean," she said.

Becky Fooks
Auctioneers have valued the collection at more than £15,000

The hoard, discovered in October 2019, was returned to the couple this year after expert analysis and legal work. The British Museum guessed they were deposited early in the English Civil War (1642-51) by a landowner trying to keep his wealth safe.

The collection, including James I and Charles I gold coins and Elizabeth I silver shillings, is being sold by Duke's Auctions in Dorchester on Tuesday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-68848975

 

[Ermintruder]

The hoard, discovered in October 2019, was returned to the couple this year after expert analysis and legal work

What, it takes 4-and-a-half years to legally confirm you are the owner of something you find under the floor of a house that you've bought?

Ahh, is this perhaps some strange English legal quandary arising from leasehold versus freehold possession of property? I mean in comparison with the semi-simple system of (almost) universal freehold ownership we have in the utopian paradise of Scotland (ps don't mention feu duty)

 

[SummerLightning]

Not to do with leasehold, but with the Treasure Act. The Crown gets first dibs on anything declared treasure trove, and can either buy items at a fair valuation or return them. Predictably, this can take a very long time.

 

[PeteS]

I'm surprised that the hoard is only worth £15k, but I guess this is an auctioneer's ploy to attract interest.

 

[Ermintruder]

Not to do with leasehold, but with the Treasure Act. The Crown gets first dibs on anything declared treasure trove,

This makes (arguable) sense outdoors in areas of common land, or even within an owned estate: but in the specific context of under/within a privately-owned house it seems excessive.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly: would this also apply if the so-called 'trove' was actually above the earth? (ie unburied treasure, but in caskets or chests etc hidden below the floorboards).

If so, does Crown first refusal apply in the horizontal plane as well? if I click on a cunningly-concealed release-catch in my oak-walled library, revealing a stunning panoply of gems, gold & alabaster....I don't automatically own that either?

Buried under the ground with nothing built above or around, I can just about see there's a juicy legal argument to be contended.

But concealed underneath, or inside....I'm really puzzling over the logic (nb I am referring entirely to finds that are primarily of evident marketable value rather than archaeological / historical relevance: and before someone says "that's what the system's there to protect", clearly we all know that's a side-effect of any empowered ownership wrangle.

 

[AnonyJ]

This makes (arguable) sense outdoors in areas of common land, or even within an owned estate: but the specific context of under/within a privately-owned house it seems excessive.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly: would this also apply if the so-called 'trove' was actually above the earth? (ie unburied treasure, but in caskets or chests etc hidden below the floorboards).

If so, does Crown first refusal apply in the horizontal plane as well? if I click on a cunningly-concealed release-catch in my oak-walled library, revealing a stunning panoply of gems, gold & alabaster....I don't automatically own that either?

Buried under the ground with nothing built above or around, I can just about see there's a juicy legal argument to be contended.

But concealed underneath, or inside....I'm really puzzling over the logic (nb I am referring entirely to finds that are primarily of evident marketable value rather than archaeological / historical relevance: and before someone says "that's what the system's there to protect", clearly we all know that's a side-effect of any empowered ownership wrangle.

IIRC if valuable items are found are covered by the England, Wales & NI 2023 amendment to the 1996 Treasure Act, also covers items over 200 years old, and also applies even if the items are not made of precious metal: https://ial.uk.com/changes-to-the-law-of-treasure/

The gold sovereigns found in a donated school piano, for example, were still covered by the previous act(s) - Steve Punt covered that tale in his Punt, PI R4 series https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09309h1

AIUI The Crown gets first dibs to 'buy' anything determined 'treasure' by The Coroner at a fair valuation, or releases it back to the finder and the owner of the location it was found (if two different people they get to evenly split any proceeds)

 

[PeteS]

You can see why artefacts are sold discreetly on without reference to the authorities. I'm also surprised that so many finds do get reported, particularly coins.

 

[Min Bannister]

nb I am referring entirely to finds that are primarily of evident marketable value rather than archaeological / historical relevance: and before someone says "that's what the system's there to protect", clearly we all know that's a side-effect of any empowered ownership wrangle.

But how would you know if they were of archaeological relevance unless they were taken away and examined by experts?

 

[kesavaross]

But how would you know if they were of archaeological relevance unless they were taken away and examined by experts?

Perhaps if they were all the same then one could get taken to a dealer to find out it's value. That would then at least give an idea of the possible value of the hoard.

 

[Steven]

Not that I know anything about coins, but I can't believe that they're - apparently - worth so little. I'd love to own them simply for the thrill of having something from those times.

 

[Ermintruder]

But how would you know if they were of archaeological relevance unless they were taken away and examined by experts?

True, but my strong impression is that this first-place ownership presumption by The Crown has its origins in financial rather than cultural gain.

And if I found something under my house floorboards (such as an intricate interlocking parametallic cube of Byzantine complexity, a massive African tribal mask, or a curiously-heavy boxed boardgame) I might want to be bad, and keep that precious thing for myself (for at least 20 minutes, before I considered contacting The Authorities)

 

[Min Bannister]

Perhaps if they were all the same then one could get taken to a dealer to find out it's value. That would then at least give an idea of the possible value of the hoard.

I don't really think that could cut it. A silver groat from the reign of King Humperdinck the Unready may be worth a fiver. A hoard of such groats found 600 miles away from Hump's seat and which match with a local folk legend that say his page stole a pot of coins and brought them to the area could be of some cultural significance. The whole thing would need to be looked at in context.

True, but my strong impression is that this first-place ownership presumption by The Crown has its origins in financial rather than cultural gain.

Wouldn't surprise me if true...

 

[Mythopoeika]

True, but my strong impression is that this first-place ownership presumption by The Crown has its origins in financial rather than cultural gain.

Sadly, I think this is probably true. It's become an exercise in extracting money from the public, rather than some noble higher cause.

 

[AnonyJ]

It's my understanding (from my limited knowledge) that HM doesn't get to benefit as such in monetary terms.

AIUI either The Crown (HM) would like to keep it for cultural value (ie., a museum quality piece or of great historical significance) and pays a fair valuation to the finder(s) or the finder (and landowner if a different person) get to keep the item(s) and sell if they wish, splitting the proceeds evenly if there are two or more parties involved.

The Coroner, acting on behalf of HM, instructs a period of inquiry in the case of items of high monetary value not of a historical significance - deducing if a rightful owner or inheritors of an owner can be found. If not (and in the case of the sovereigns in the piano, 40 possible claims to ownership were investigated) then the findees and/or property/land owner are given ownership.

If the find is over 200 years old, but not of any obvious large monetary value then The Portable Antiquities scheme is informed, the county archaeologist/historians assess the piece(s) and let the finder know if either HM (in reality a museum or similar) would like to retain the item, and the finder is compensated or releases the item(s) back to finder (often with useful additional information).

An interesting .pdf guide is linked to on the The Portable Antiquities website https://finds.org.uk/documents/file/pa-and-t-leaflet.pdf

 

[AnonyJ]

Likely a Civil War hoard.

Historical coin hoard found buried under Dorset cottage​

8 hours ago

A buried hoard of coins dating to the 16th and 17th Centuries has been found during renovation work on a cottage.

The cache of more than 1,000 gold and silver coins was discovered under an earth floor at South Poorton, Dorset.

One of the property's new owners, Robert Fooks, was digging with a pickaxe by torchlight when he found the trove in a pottery bowl.

Auctioneers hope to sell the collection for between £15,000 and £30,000.

Becky Fooks
The hoard was found in a pottery bowl buried in a bare earth floor

Mr Fooks' wife Becky said her husband was spending evenings in the cottage after work to increase the height of the room and install underfloor heating before they moved in.

She said: "He came across a mass of coins covered in mud and put them in a bucket. He didn't stop and study them. He's a worker - when he's intent on something he cracks on."

Mrs Fooks said it was only the following day that she examined the coins and realised how old they were.

"You can clearly see the date. Some of the gold coins were easy to read, really clean," she said.

Becky Fooks
Auctioneers have valued the collection at more than £15,000

The hoard, discovered in October 2019, was returned to the couple this year after expert analysis and legal work. The British Museum guessed they were deposited early in the English Civil War (1642-51) by a landowner trying to keep his wealth safe.

The collection, including James I and Charles I gold coins and Elizabeth I silver shillings, is being sold by Duke's Auctions in Dorchester on Tuesday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-68848975

The coin hoard fetched a sum of £60,000! I guess that after auction fees and costs the couple net about £50,000, and they plan to pay off some of the mortgage with it:

"A hoard of historical coins that was unearthed during renovation work on a cottage has sold at auction for double the top estimated value.

The cache of more than 1,000 gold and silver coins, dating back to the 16th and 17th Centuries, was found buried under a floor at South Poorton, Dorset.

The collection fetched £60,000 at Duke's Auctions in Dorchester.

Cottage owners Robert and Becky Fooks, who found the trove, said the money would help to pay off their mortgage..."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-68885685

 

[Floyd]

Cottage owners Robert and Becky Fooks, who found the trove, said the money would help to pay off their mortgage..."

Lucky Fookers.

 

[Frideswide]

my strong impression is that this first-place ownership presumption by The Crown has its origins in financial rather than cultural gain.

yes but no but yes...

It developed at a time when the Crown really did own everything in theory - very much in theory though. A (semi) feudal system has this built in. Not quibbling with the financial gain bit but that's a happy byproduct that comes from exercising the underlying rights.

I think.

Maybe.