Well decimal currency is now 50 years old and comes under the heritage act so get ready to hand in all your 1966 coins
Sad day today for Aussie detectorists
- Thread starter the duck
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Are they planning on recalling all coins in circulation older than 50 years?
You get the odd 20 cent piece from 1966 in change?
You get the odd 20 cent piece from 1966 in change?
im not sure what they will do probably nothing
I'm thinking they just put a hole in their legislation and regs. Do you suppose ANYBODY ever put anything back older than 50 years old? I don't really know how date the half horse shoes and lead shot I have dug up. Should I return it to where it was found just to be safe? Or would that then be littering/illegal dumping? As Welcome back Kotter's Vinnie Barbarino used to say....I'm so confused. Lol 
That's why I knocked down my old asbestos house.... before some idiot had it heritage listed. Ummm it has happened too.
Ummm it has happened too. 
Still haven't found a pre dec so guess I am safe from this rule, I would be the most unlucky detectorist I'm sure
Phasing out of the 5 cent coin may be on the cards, what does it buy these days?
Anything over 50 years old has to be left in situ. Something unimaginative like that anyway.Roscoe said:
Goldpick
Chris Johnson
Heritage acts exist to protect places or items of importance to Australian history, and I doubt very much whether common decimal currency would fall under that banner, despite the "50 year" rule in Vic. I don't think they would care for someone calling out an archaeologist to inspect a coin spill full of 1c & 2c coins.
Thankfully SA does not have the same regulations as in Victoria, with all heritage places listed, so you know where you can and cannot detect. Obviously any artefacts that could possibly be found within those listed locations could have historical relevance to the sites, hence should not be detected.
Roscoe, you will have to look at your state regs/acts regarding heritage protection, as all states will differ.
Thankfully SA does not have the same regulations as in Victoria, with all heritage places listed, so you know where you can and cannot detect. Obviously any artefacts that could possibly be found within those listed locations could have historical relevance to the sites, hence should not be detected.
Roscoe, you will have to look at your state regs/acts regarding heritage protection, as all states will differ.
condor22
Mike
I have 29 of the round $0.50 pieces, buggered if I'm handing them in when there is about $8 worth of silver in each
I downloaded a copy of the basic Victorian Heritage Act 1995, and found that it is 194 pages long, with 99.9% unintelligible legal gobbledygook, that we ordinary folk will have trouble understanding. To make matters worse there is a separate act for aboriginal sites.
Most of it appears to target shipwrecks and defined land based sites/buildings, etc, but there is one very baffling section that appears to be an area of possible concern as the rules apply to "non-registered archaeological sites". Now fortunately this applies to what are "Registered Objects", but I couldn't find what is a registered object, or how it is defined, apart from lots of long review and approval verbage. How in the heck is Joe Bloe to understand what this means.
Extract of Archaeological Relic and Archaeological Site definitions below, are extracted from the document.
"archaeological relic"
means
(a) any archaeological deposit; or
(b) any artefact, remains or material evidence associated with an archaeological deposit which
(c) relates to the non-Aboriginal settlement or visitation of the area or any part of the area which now comprises Victoria; and
(d) is 50 or more years old but does not include the remains of a ship or an article associated with a ship;
"archaeological site"
means an area in which archaeological relics are situated
Now I am sure that you all understand LOL
So until advised otherwise, I am just going to try and steer clear of what are defined as an archaeological or historic site in the readily available information. And I will not be interpreting something that is more than 50 years old as an archaeological relic.
Rob.
Most of it appears to target shipwrecks and defined land based sites/buildings, etc, but there is one very baffling section that appears to be an area of possible concern as the rules apply to "non-registered archaeological sites". Now fortunately this applies to what are "Registered Objects", but I couldn't find what is a registered object, or how it is defined, apart from lots of long review and approval verbage. How in the heck is Joe Bloe to understand what this means.
Extract of Archaeological Relic and Archaeological Site definitions below, are extracted from the document.
"archaeological relic"
means
(a) any archaeological deposit; or
(b) any artefact, remains or material evidence associated with an archaeological deposit which
(c) relates to the non-Aboriginal settlement or visitation of the area or any part of the area which now comprises Victoria; and
(d) is 50 or more years old but does not include the remains of a ship or an article associated with a ship;
"archaeological site"
means an area in which archaeological relics are situated
Now I am sure that you all understand LOL
So until advised otherwise, I am just going to try and steer clear of what are defined as an archaeological or historic site in the readily available information. And I will not be interpreting something that is more than 50 years old as an archaeological relic.
Rob.
Thankfully my 4500 can't tell the difference between heritage or not, so I always dig. Hard to tell if the slugs I find are over 50 years there, so I keep them (could have been seeded for others). Old buttons and coins I always put back to rot unless I'm overruled
For Silver: Any connections with S.W.Silver & Co (the use of "ye" sounds a bit Pommy)?
Does the Act mean that I have to pop this back in the ground?
For Silver: Any connections with S.W.Silver & Co (the use of "ye" sounds a bit Pommy)?
Does the Act mean that I have to pop this back in the ground?
ozziii
Paul
Useless heritage laws, whats the good of them, people should just move on from the past & get with the times.
As for detecting heritage area's or objects, how stupid to ban it, wouldn't it be better to dig up these old heritage type objects so they could be displayed or shown to people so then people could learn more about the past, But No, these so called do gooders would just rather have them stay it the ground & most likely rust away & never be seen, whats the use of protecting something if its never going to be found & seen anyway.
As for detecting heritage area's or objects, how stupid to ban it, wouldn't it be better to dig up these old heritage type objects so they could be displayed or shown to people so then people could learn more about the past, But No, these so called do gooders would just rather have them stay it the ground & most likely rust away & never be seen, whats the use of protecting something if its never going to be found & seen anyway.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 5,296
- Reaction score
- 9,479
so ring pulls from the 60s are heritage protected, bugger!
Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't similar rules apply to large gold nuggets found in Australia, I heard a whisper somewhere that they cannot be sold outside of our borders?
Not that I'll ever have to be concerned about it 8.(
Not that I'll ever have to be concerned about it 8.(
