Rolex

[hitchhiker]

well found nice watch. i can understand people not handing items in for obvious reasons we have similar laws in uk.if anything found in a public place has to be handed into the police and if the true owner cant be identified it becomes the property of the finder after a given time.
If something is found in a NON public place and the true owner cant be identified after a given time then it becomes the property of the landholder and not the finder. There was a case of someone finding a winning lottery ticket on a supermarket floor they cashed it in and got charged with fraud and theft as the true owner reported it lost
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201932/What-lotto-bad-luck-Couple-30k-ticket-forced-hand-half-cash-real-winner.html

 

[joegun122]

n/t

 

[imalookin2]

Congrats on your find! I learned a lot about those watches when I found one. You said a jeweler took the back off. Hopefully he charged you and installed a new gasket and used the Rolex tool to re-install the back. It is not necessary to remove the back of those watches. There are other clues to prove them.

To have it reconditioned you want to send it to Rolex. The fee is $700 and they remove every piece, clean it and then re-install every piece with the correct lubricant. They recommend this every 7 years during normal use. They will polish the watch and replace the corroded benzel included. You can destroy the value of the watch by having it improperly cleaned and refurbished. If you just want to sell it then expect a lot less than the 5 grand you state. You are not going to get that. By the serial number on the side of the watch what is the year of making? The serial number will be opposite the model number. You might want to ask the police if the serial number is listed as stolen. Like a car VIN those watches tracked. Yours shows some condition issues. Most Rolex watches hold up better. Maybe yours was lost a long time ago?

 

[plymouthian12]

the price of 5000-5400 was after it being cleaned and having the correct bracelet put on, funny thing is theres a couple guys that have found parts of the bracelet near where i found it

 

[togamac]

I'm hearing you Tom. I hate to admit it but I too don't have faith in someone in the public doing the right thing when I know I can do it. I found a class ring last year and am having a heck of a time finding the right owner. Seven girls with the same initials were in the graduating class, 3 have said it's there's but none lost it where I found it. I went to the school to get help in IDing the other 4. The person at the the desk said, "Leave it with us and we'll make sure it gets to the right person." I said, "That's not going to happen. I don't want a reward because the reward I get is seeing the look on the person's face when I return their ring. If I give it to you, I don't get to see that."

I've still got the ring and will keep unless I find its rightful owner.

 

[rarysgaard]

Tom in Cal makes an excellent point. I was kicked out of a local swimming area and was told there was an ordinance against it. I called the city hall and asked to speak to the person in charge. They told me if I found something of value that it wasn't mine therefore I was not entitled to keep it. That is total crap. With that line of logic if I am walking down the side walk and spot a $ 20.00 bill, I should leave it there and keep on walking as it doesn't belong to me. Some bureaucrats defy any common sense. In metal detecting you can some time be the bad guy for doing the right thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... That is total crap. With that line of logic if I am walking down the side walk and spot a $ 20.00 bill, I should leave it there and keep on walking as it doesn't belong to me. .....

No, not total crap, it's the law (and we other forumites expect you to dutifully obey it!! ) As far as the $20 bill on the street, no that falls below the law's threshold of value criteria. Not sure about your state, but in CA, it's a value of "$100 or more" if I recall. So I guess if I found a $100 bill, then yes, I'd have to turn it in to the police, in order to be in compliance with the law. But a $20 I could keep.

I subscribe, via the company I own, to a legal services call-in-number, where subscribers can call in to an attorney to ask questions. I called and talked to an attorney about this law. My question was how something valued ?? For example: An I-phone or a gold wedding band might have cost some poor fellow several hundred dollars, RIGHT? Yet the "intrinsic" value of that I-phone is just a few dollars of silocone, copper, etc.. right? (ie.: the "melt value"). Or the gold band might have a melt value of $90 at today's spot market, yet cost that newlywed $350 at the jewelry store, right? Or a pair of prescription eye-glasses might have cost you $250 at the optomotrist, yet have negligable value as scrap (they're only of value to the person to whom they're prescribed). So my question to the attorney was: Which value do you subscribe to, in order to determine whether to turn it in to the police lost-&-found?

The attorney's answer was: "Turn it in to the police, and let them decide which value criteria to use".

DOH!

 

[ferdware]

Great find. And a great conversation starter when you wear it around.

 

[VBDave]

i believe if found in water its considered abandoned property

I too used to think such things. Until one day, I found some prescription glasses (apparently just lost based on condition). As I got ready to throw them out at the garbage can on my way back to my truck (since they were obviously of no value to me), I had a change of heart. I figured that they WOULD be of value to the person they belonged to. So I decided to put them on the craigslist lost-&-found. Eg.: "Found prescription glasses with metal detector at such & such beach, email to describe, etc..." (heck, I figured there might even be a tip to the finder

The next day, an email appeared in my inbox. It was the police in that beach-side city!! They were inquiring if the glasses that I found fit a certain description. Apparently someone had come in to their department that night before, reporting a lost pair of glasses on that tourist-beach. Oddly ... the ones I had found did NOT match that description. So I emailed the lady-cop back, telling her that the ones I found did not match the description she gave. I figured that was the end of that matter.

But no. She emailed back and said something like this:

"Since you probably find all types of items on the beach with your metal detector, ... In the future, we would appreciate it if you turn in all-such-items to the department, for proper lost & found procedure. There is a night-slot box for when we are closed after 5pm. Just put the items in the slot .... IN ORDER TO BE IN PROPER COMOPLIANCE WITH THE LAW ..".

That last part had me stumped. What the h*ck was she talking about? So I looked it up in the laws of CA. Every state has similar wording. It goes something like this: Any item found worth over a given threshold criteria ($100, or $250, or whatever, depending on your state), must be turned in to the police dept. You will get it back if no one claims it in 30 days, supposedly. And if there's any processing costs (like the cost it costs them to run an ad in the local newspaper for "found item, come in to describe), you must pay, if you want the item back.

And quite frankly, I'd be skeptical if you got anything back. I mean, what's to stop the front counter clerk from calling their cousin Joe, and saying "hey joe, want a nice rolex watch? Come down to the dept. and describe a rolex with the following features....". Now I know that sounds dastardly, but ...... in THEIR minds eyes, it was never yours to begin with! How have you been harmed? You turned it in expecting full well that someone might claim it. It was never yours in the first place. You only "found" it, and so forth. And the law makes no distinction of when YOU think an item was lost. Eg.: if you got it from a foot deep, in dry sand, evidencing it'd been there for several years .... makes no difference. The law makes no distinctions. It also makes no distinction on how an item is valued (ie.: the "intrisic value" verses the "value when new"). For example: Obviously the glasses I found had probalby only $1.00 in intrinsic value (some glass and metal). However, to the person who lost them, the poor guy probably paid several hundred dollars (over the $100 CA threshold) when he got them.

All I can say is, .... it made me think twice about ever posting a "found" ad again. And ironically, if you look at the "found" forums on any given day, on any given md'ing site, you see no shortage of people posting and gloating their show-&-tell of their latest rings, watches, etc... that they found. Doh!

Since the beginning of time, the problem hasn't been the law. The law has always been a lifeless bunch of words that has definite meaning, but comes bereft of the mind, heart and common sense required to formulate those "distinctions" that make it useful. Consequently, that heart, mind and common sense are supposed to be applied by the people whom we trust to interpret and enforce the law. When they can't or won't, the law becomes a PITA that the people serve, instead of being a tool for good, as originally intended. Good cops and public servants are the ones who recognize this and incorporate heart, mind and common sense into their daily work. Working in that field for the past 30 years, I regret that what I've seen is fewer and fewer of them doing that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

VB-dave, For starters, you're right: A law born out of "wandering cattle" laws of the 1800's, was probably never envisioned or meant to mean that someone who finds a gold band (that was likely fumble-fingered lost 10 yrs. ago) to have to "turn it in". You're right that only a strict-reading of the law (and not the "intent" or "spirit" of the law would lead someone to that conclusion). And you're right that *most* people do not see our hobby as violating those laws, in the cases in which we find things over $100 value.

HOWEVER, you have to put yourself in those person's minds, that are tasked with answering the citizen's "pressing questions". By asking them "does it apply to singular gold ring from the park" or "sandbox", etc.... , if they were to say "no, the spirit of the law never meant to lasso in things like that", then they would only be opening up the pandora's box for everyone to "split hairs" and "debate semantics" and "bend the rules" from then-on-out. So they HAVE to take the conservative *technical* answer approach, to a question like that .... EVEN if they personally would never have thought to do that, or have thought to hassle someone, or even notice someone, doing that very thing. They are duty-bound to give you the technical answer.

Let me give you an illustration: Let's say the speed limit is 55. And let's say you're doing 56. If you asked a cop or a lawyer: "can I go 56 mph?", they would be duty-bound to tell you "no", and then list off a series of consequences which can occur if you go 56. Yet we ALL know the "spirit" of the law is that they just don't want people treating it like a speedway and driving recklessly, right? We ALL know that 56 is still "safe", right? We ALL know that you won't *really* get a ticket if you're going 56, right? So why then, do they tell you, that "you can't go 56" ? Because you asked. And they are duty-bound to tell you the "technical" answer.

Or noise decibal limit laws: All cities and counties have them. In my line of work (street sweepers with back-pack blowers) we would sometimes get complaints that we woke up people, if we were near residential areas in the late hours of the night. So we would have to re-route our routes, to do those particular sensitive spots at earlier hours, or after 7am, etc.... On more than one occasion, the complaint led the police/sherrif to bring out a decibal measuring device. And ... of course .... the back-pack blower exceeded the limits, so we were told we had do whatever-shopping center it was, before the 10pm curfew, etc... So what we would do, is any sensitive spots like that (near residentials) early in the PM, or at the end of the route after 7am the following morning. And instead would do any industrial neighborhood spots (that lacked close-by residentials) for the middle-of-the-night hours. However, *technically*, even those industrial areas STILL had noise-decibal level laws. Afterall, they're still within the "city" or "county" jurisdictions. But the REASONABLE person knows, that if there's no one around to care, then .... you're not in violation of noise-curfews at risk of complaints, RIGHT? However, I bet if I went in and asked a sherrif or a city police: "Hi, can I please run this equipment which exceeds noise decibal limits at 2am, within your city or county limits?", they would be duty-bound to tell me "no you can't". Why? BECAUSE I ASKED.

So I do not fault cops, lawyers, and archies for giving interpretations of silly things that they "say" applies to our hobby. I fault the silly md'rs for thinking they need to ask, for people getting "no's". And yes, sometimes, even without someone "asking" you can still sometimes ruffle feathers of someone who takes a purist approach to some silly law (like in my case, I did not go seeking that cop's input). But certainly we can all use a little due discretion to avoid such busy-bodies. The fact that there are busy-bodies who might not like what we do, does NOT mean that the way to avoid such encounters, is to "go ask". That would merely mean, to me, to avoid such busy-bodies and lookie-lous.

 

[VBDave]

"However, I bet if I went in and asked a sherrif or a city police: "Hi, can I please run this equipment which exceeds noise decibal limits at 2am, within your city or county limits?", they would be duty-bound to tell me "no you can't". Why? BECAUSE I ASKED."

Guess you asked the wrong cop. When I got a question like that, my response would have been "Well,Sir, it's technically illegal but I understand you're trying to make a living. The noise ordinance is a misdemeanor, which means I have discretion as to whether I take enforcement action, even if a complaint is made. I can't speak for what another cop might do, but if I'm willing to tolerate your noise because I'm working and awake anyway, and no on else complains, then as far as I'm concerned there's no violation. But if I were to get a complaint, I'd ask you to stop and I'd expect you to do so. If you continued after being told to stop, all bets are off and I'd write you a summons. Fair enough? Just remember, up front the law says you can't, so any other cop but me may not see it the way I do.

That's how I did my job for 30 years, and not once did that approach come around to bite me in the butt. I got cooperation and respect because I took the time to level with folks, treated them with the respect they deserved, and made them feel as if they had the freedom to make their own intelligent decision.

The "duty bound" automatons within our ranks were not people I sought out as friends, or peers whose judgment I would trust with my life. Now that I'm retired, I can come out and say it: They pretty much disgusted me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... When I got a question like that, my response would have been "Well,Sir, it's technically illegal but I understand you're trying to make a living. The noise ordinance is a misdemeanor, which means I have discretion as to whether I take enforcement action, even if a complaint is made. I can't speak for what another cop might do, but if I'm willing to tolerate your noise because I'm working and awake anyway, and no on else complains, then as far as I'm concerned there's no violation. But if I were to get a complaint, I'd ask you to stop and I'd expect you to do so....

VBdave, so you were in law-enforcement, eh? Thanx for your service. That's a tough and stressful job that I wouldn't take for all the pay they could offer me! So my hat's off to you.

Ok, as far as your quote above: Once you finished saying that to the person questioning you "can I?", if they were to follow that up by asking "ok great then. You're saying I can do it?". You can NOT say "yes, it's legal and ok to do ". See the catch?

Example: one time my buddy and I asked a const. site worker/foreman if we could detect his old-town demolition site after they cut out for the day. The guy said "I leave at 5pm. And what I don't see after 5pm doesn't bother me". So we tried to clarify and ask: "oh, so you're saying we have permission then?". He only repeated himself with a wink: "what I don't see after 5pm doesn't bother me". And it was THEN that I "got it". I realized, that he could not say "yes", but .......... we all knew what he was saying. It was a lesson to me to not ask dumb questions sometimes.

 

[VBDave]

Why would I say that it's legal and OK to do after just having taken such pains to explain that it's NOT legal? Do you see that in the example I did my best to explain the REALITY of the situation? That if no one complains there's no foul, but if they do he's subject to the penalties the law prescribes? I furthermore took responsibility for what I would do if a complaint were to be made, assuring him that he wouldn't be summoned if I got the complaint, unless he continued after I advised him of that complaint.

I also let him know that another officer might not take the same approach. When you take time to fully explain the choices and their consequences, and allow a person to make their own decision, you treat them like an adult instead of a child and, almost invariably, they respond like an adult. It's the way I would want to be treated if I asked the question. It takes time and effort, but the voluntary results I got versus "No, you can't" were worth the effort. The sad part is that most police departments nowadays tolerate their officers treating people like they're stupid. And then they wonder why so many people look down on them.

There's nothing immoral or "wrong" about my approach, since the noise ordinance is there not because it's wrong to make noise, but because it has the potential to negatively impact another person. Without knowledge of a negative impact, there's no REASON for an officer to enforce such a law. Make sense? Same with metal detecting. The act of looking for lost property id not immoral or "wrong". So, when I find a valuable, unless I have knowledge of the person that lost it, I have no REASON to attempt to return it. But if I DO have knowledge, I should be expected to return it. The idiot cop, clerk, whatever that would insist that ALL found property be turned in, regardless of what the law says, is exactly that: an idiot. The fallback of "it's the law" just doesn't fly. The law, when applied without reason, is not society's servant. It's the other way around.

 

[KinTN]

fwiw, I stop in at the local PD and ask: "are there any laws or ordinances that prohibit metal detecting on public property?".
NOT, ""may I"? or "is it OK?".

In every case where I have don't this, it is immediately kicked upstairs after a "I dunno, let me check" and the Chief has told me personally that he doesn't know of any such law or cant find any such law(one guy spent 20 minutes going thru the statutes for me). I take the op to explain how I conduct myself and end by giving them my card and volunteering to help anytime someone needs some free metal detecting for a lost item. Admittedly, I only hunt small towns, but so far my experiences doing it this way have been positive.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

fwiw, I stop in at the local PD and ask: "are there any laws or ordinances that prohibit metal detecting on public property?".
NOT, ""may I"? or "is it OK?".

In every case where I have don't this, it is immediately kicked upstairs after a "I dunno, let me check" and the Chief has told me personally that he doesn't know of any such law or cant find any such law(one guy spent 20 minutes going thru the statutes for me). I take the op to explain how I conduct myself and end by giving them my card and volunteering to help anytime someone needs some free metal detecting for a lost item. Admittedly, I only hunt small towns, but so far my experiences doing it this way have been positive.

KinTN, this way-of-phrasing that you describe has been talked about on threads of this sort, in the past. Basically what you're saying, is to phrase it something like: "Are there any laws that prohibit metal detectors" or "Are there any laws that address metal detecting?", etc.... INSTEAD of a "permission" form of question like: "Can I metal detect in the park?" (which risks the answer to be arbitrary or whimsical).

Because by doing so, it seems to put the burden of proof on THEM to cite such a rule, if one existed (which is rarely the case). HOWEVER, I have heard of many times where this still backfires. Silly answers like "yes you can detect, but you can't dig" (even though you never mentioned digging or holes, it's just the knee-jerk mental image that some have). Or one person I read about got the odd answer of "we would prefer you didn't" (as if he'd just asked her personal whim). And when the questioner objected and said "... but where is that written", you can bet it just went down-hill from there.

So think about in KinTN: If your idea of wording is to put the burden of proof on them to cite such a specific rule or law, then .... why can't a person simply go look it up for themselves, to see if there are any prohibitions, instead of waiting for a live person to tell you "there's no prohibitions"? Or if you REALLY have the need to talk to a live person (because perhaps you can't find the listing of city codes, charter, laws, etc...), then here's an alternative: Ask that live person: " Where can I find the listing of rules, laws, muni-codes, etc... for the public viewing?" Then I suppose they'll pull out the binder from behind the desk, or give you the link to where it is on the city website, or whatever. Then look it up for yourself. If you see nothing there that says "no metal detecting", then presto, it's not prohibited

 

[VBDave]

Exactly! You are absolutely right to check into existing laws if you don't know what they are. And your experience shows that few if any who are responsible for enforcement can tell you what the law is. That's not because they're derelict in their job, it's because that particular law and its effect on society as a whole is so minuscule that they have never had the need to know it. There are many, many laws that are enforced for the sake of enforcing them, with no real benefit to society. It's those laws, and those who insist on enforcing them, that make an honest cop's job that much harder by eroding the trust and respect we should be trying to elicit from the public. Wow...I just realized what a tall soap box I've been on. Sorry, but the whole issue of asinine laws and Barney Fife wannabes hits me harder than most I guess, because I spent 30 years trying to live down that image while trying to get along with peers who aspired to it.

 

[KinTN]

Yes, this exact thing has certainly been discussed by us several times.

Guys, I am on your side, Really. But I know my community. Showing up, Introducing myself and getting to know folks goes miles toward goodwill and honesty. It gives me a chance to explain how its done ("no sir, a Shovel?? that's just not right, I use a common garden trowel if I need to go deeper than a couple of inches") and for the Top LE Dawg to better understand what we do. I know for a fact that 2 different MD-er's have come to one PD months later asking if its OK and got a cheery 'Of Course, just refill your holes' because I had laid the groundwork. I firmly believe that this is an opportunity to advance our hobby by explaining our case and getting important folks onto our side. And more than once, I have told a bitchy citizen who was questioning what I was doing that the popo had my card on file and had told me I was completely within my rights.

By all mean, ALWAYS look up the laws before detecting an unknown area. The Internet is a fantastic resource and I always do just that.

Maybe its different elsewhere (and I wont insult anyone by naming states known for less than civil behavior), and I sure don't advocate doing anything you aren't comfortable doing, but in the small towns down south (TN), it works.

 

[plymouthian12]

VBDAVE thanks for your service i also work in law enforcement as a C/O for the past 25+ years and ive also returned 14 rings in the last 2 years and have had to research the owners for 11 of them one was lost for 40 years. It seems most people dont really care what we do in our sport as long as you present yourself as a caring professional. the ones that do complain is usually out of ingnorance. i remember wading around a pond fishing and a guy threatened to call the cops on me because i was fishing in front of his house in waiste deep of water. i asked him what was the problem and he stated "i just dont like you fishing there" so i told him to go ahead and call the cops,because when he was done they'd be there for me when i file my harrasment complaint. He just went back into his house nothing else became of it.

 

[sayvor]

Each Rolex has a specific serial # registered to the original owner. Rolex can contact them. I had it happen, a customer at a jewelry store I worked at went diving and found a solid gold submariner, even though the person who lost the watch got paid from insurance.. years later it turned up and was returned to him.. It happens

Eric

 

[sayvor]

Legally, if you went to a bank... they would have to give you the face value of a coin. I believe in theory that works however since 1974 we are off the gold standard. On the other hand, the us mint is selling coins to the public face value we know.... funny how a 1 oz buffalo has $50.00 face and a 1 oz liberty has $20 face I also realize there is a karat difference too, but they both have 1 ozt of pure gold in them.
Makes one think.
Another point of view, I know people say
an ounce of gold has not changed in value, only the cost has changed because of the de-valuing of the currency. or how much paper money has been printed and put into circulation,
Eric