What do you think?

[BAJR Host]

This image is designed to replace the CSA image on the detecting leaflet.

They have agreed to changing it.... (as have Historic Scotland on their leaflet) but before I send it I would like comment...

http://www.bajr.org/images/CSA.jpg

I will alter and tweak as advised... people always listen to a bit of reason... :face-thinks:

I have posted on UKDN but would appreciate this link being posted anywhere else you think.

And yes I will accept critisism... ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Personally I think it looks good David... cant see any potential cause for complaint...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

phew....

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

I agree with Steve here regarding the leaflet.

Of topic... what is happening regarding waiting for information from Mr M Heyworth regarding the COP. Information that is coming back to me is telling me that some people have been telling "porkie pies" and miss quoting certain individuals???

Dodgy I think!!!

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[JBM]

Morning All,

I do not see a problem with the proposed picture or the wording.

It makes sense and as you may be aware nearly all finds come in the top few inches.

Many detectors will only reach the depth of modern day ploughing so there should be little problem with this proposed image and its recommendation.

As a follow on if there is a problem and Iam sure that someone else has already tumbled to it is that we are looking at current day detectors and their related technology.

In a very short span of time detectors will be available that will give increased depths and will need to be handled with responsibly.

Keep talking I like these liaison threads.
Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Paul Belford]

I like it but I think that the red cross should be the same size as the green tick (ie. bigger).

[JBM]

Why so Paul.???[:0]Jerry.



Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Paul Belford]

Purely for the consistency of the graphic design.

[BAJR Host]

just for that I will make the tick smaller...
;)


but seriously, the reason behind the size issue... is this...

Green tick etc etc are positive symbols

red cross are negative... therefore, this image is to accentuate the area and i hasten to add the reporting level that is classed as Good... the levels that are BAD are clear enough and to labour the point with a bloody great red cross was seen as un-needed. perception comes into it. Its my illustrator head coming to the front again... (aye... I'm one of them too! MAAIS) and it can be intersting how size, type and colour of a font can be manipulated to change a perception of a viewer. At the moment, the dominant symbol is the Green tick in the topsoil, which reinforces the Topsoil only pleasemessage, without piling on a negative of dig into the subsoil and the sons of satan will come and rip your legs off... }:) (or in this case a larger red cross :face-thinks:)

Interesting topic.. really

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

just for that I will make the tick smaller...
;)


but seriously, the reason behind the size issue... is this...

Green tick etc etc are positive symbols

red cross are negative... therefore, this image is to accentuate the area and i hasten to add the reporting level that is classed as Good... the levels that are BAD are clear enough and to labour the point with a bloody great red cross was seen as un-needed. perception comes into it. Its my illustrator head coming to the front again... (aye... I'm one of them too! MAAIS) and it can be intersting how size, type and colour of a font can be manipulated to change a perception of a viewer. At the moment, the dominant symbol is the Green tick in the topsoil, which reinforces the Topsoil only pleasemessage, without piling on a negative of dig into the subsoil and the sons of satan will come and rip your legs off... }:) (or in this case a larger red cross :face-thinks:)

Interesting topic.. really

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

Those parrot pills are kicking in :D

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Paul Belford]

Fair enough! I think there is far too much negativity about metal detectoring on here from other forum users, and I was not intending to add to this. I shall bow out from this part of the forum once again and stick to things I know about.

cheers

Paul

[garybrun]

Hey Paul.
Don't give up that easy...your opinions are valid in the debate.
Keep them coming!

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

....s' OK paul.... just thought I would explain why.... no offence intended... stay.... or the Parrot gets it !

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Belford]

No worries, I was not offended, but I am quite aware of the sensitivities on both sides of the debate. I shall keep watching but comment sparingly in this particular arena!

I do hope the parrot is not a polly-gone.

(groan [:o)])

[garybrun]

I do know there are no more Aspirin in the jungle available because the parrotseatemall (even larger groan)

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[JBM]

Here is another slant on the green tick and why it is very appropriate.

80% of finds coming out from the ground come from from Metal detectorists.

Nearly all finds located using a metal detector come from the top 8" of soil give or take an inch or two and fall well within the standard ploughing depth.

These finds from the top few inches are very important as they give a lead to the archaeologists to come behind us for official action if its thought necessary.

So a big Green tick seemes correct to me.Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[BAJR Host]

i nod sagely to that.... true jerry... true

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by JBM
80% of finds coming out from the ground come from from Metal detectorists. Where do you get this figure from? We simply dont know how many finds are being made by metal detectorists who are not reporting them. The last official estimate was that detectorists in England and Wales were finding 400 000 annually. The number of finds reported to the PAS last year however was 31 265, but a typical excavation archive from even a small single urban site (and not a few rural ones) will contain at least this many finds, most of which will have contextual information somewhat more precise than a mere six figure grid reference.

So 80% of what kind of finds, because if what archaeologists are currently overloading overstretched museum storerooms with is only 20%, thats an awful lot of finds being removed from the ground by detectorists and therefore the reporting of only around 31000 of them would be worrying !!


quote: Nearly all finds located using a metal detector come from the top 8" of soil give or take an inch or two and fall well within the standard ploughing depth Well, 'nearly' all except the ones that dont. If you look at the Treasure Reports for example, there are quite a few cases of finds which did not. The Crundale hoard (30 - 55 cm), the Berwick hoard (Treasure case 2005/T120), Cumwhitton and quite a few others also (details are not easy to get, the PAS is sticking by the detectorists and seems cagey about revealing such details).

Also in looking at this question, perhaps we should take into account the fact that we are incessantly told by detectorists and their supporters that metal finds in the topsoil are inevitably damaged by ploughing and eaten away by artificial chemicals in the ploughsoil. Does that mean them that the thousands of objects on eBay being sold by dealers in the UK which do not show obvious signs of either of these processes are potentially not from the ploughsoil?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Slighty off topic... perhaps you could start another thread...


the question is... do you agree with the picture...

not do you think statistics are dangerous. thanks


Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

Paul wrote:

quote:The number of finds reported to the PAS last year however was 31 265,

I believe, Paul, that those were the numbers recorded by PAS and that the numbers reported were in fact much higher.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by john1504

I believe, Paul, that those were the numbers recorded by PAS and that the numbers reported were in fact much higher.
Yeah, and I gather the PAS has been busy recently counting them (!) OK, I should have said [u]recordable finds reported</u>, not the scrungy bits of metal, funny shaped water smoothed stones and gobbets of melted glass we currently see a lot of here: http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=9&sid=cbe34cde326c67d7ce17435cce26a672
...but I believe David said he wanted this thread just for discussing his piccie. Let's take this elsewhere if you want to labour the point... I was really questioning that "80%" figure quoted earlier, but we thusly seem to have got off the topic of the Green Tick.

Paul Barford
.

[BAJR Host]

true.... this thread is about the piccie.... and if there are no more comments.. I am sending it off on MOnday...

Bit cruel there Paul... most are interestnig items... but the ....er....odd shaped stones one.... er... well... I can see the first one... but the rest are stones...

though it did remind me of this archaeologist in Italy that went on about portable Paleolithic art... v convincing stones of bison, deer and horses... trouble was... with limestone if you lok at eough stones, you can see anything... [?]



Another day another WSI…