Leaderboard

Agreed. It was both stupid and greedy but I've seen rapists get smaller sentences.

It's difficult to be sympathetic as they both would have received at least a substantial 6 figure sum and possibly more. I don't understand what's wrong with rejecting a lot of money, particularly given the cost of fencing such a substantial quantity of illicit material would likely reduce the total proceeds to around half the value of the hoard - or about what they would have received anyway. Pure greed and stupidity, but I'm not sure in which order.

Sadly, just not wise enough to appreciate, or even care about, the implications of their actions. Greedy philistines like that can quite easily cause a knee jerk reaction; calling for the introduction of regulation and licensing. Would that be a bad thing, aside from the practicalities of implementation ? Bit like a fishing license, I suppose. Judging by the amount of finds popping up here there and everywhere, there must be quite a little flock to fleece.

They will be getting something else very stiff soon no doubt

Very stiff sentences indeed - perhaps surprisingly so. Seen much much less given for arguably much worse crimes. They should have taken the honest, but still well rewarded route.

such a shame, they would have made a pretty penny anyway doing it legit, and to have your name on that hoard would be something special, bet there are some dealers shitting it now

I'd bet serious money there have been other major finds, left undeclared, that nobody else knows about except the finder - especially if working alone.

Quite right Paddy, free listings means that there's no downside for a seller listing worthless crap. However, on the flip side I reckon that many of our rarest finds would have remained unlisted if they charged fees.

My first what I would call 'passable' George I farthing