Finds

Andrew Richardson, FLO, had collected my disclaimed gold ring from the BM and from the report he emailed me it turns out it is a mourning or memorial ring, not a betrothal ring as I thought.

Kent: gold memorial ring (2004 T428)
Date: dated 1679; Finder: D. Villanueva; Date of discovery: 31 October 2004. Circumstances of discovery: While searching with a metal detector. Description: Gold ring, badly scratched, dented and bent out of shape, the exterior apart form an engraved skull, the interior inscribed in lower case: Prepare to follow WR (some letters unclear). There is also an illegible mark, possibly a maker’s mark, in a rectangular shield. Note: This is a standard type of memorial ring of the 17th century. The inscription is usually ‘Prepared be to follow me’ as on two memorial rings for Charles I in the BM (Dalton 1362 and 1362), on Dalton 1283: ‘Prepared be to follow me RO’., and in shortened form on a ring of the same date, Dalton 1468: ‘Bee prepared MB July 79’. The BM would not be interested in this find.J. Rudoe 12.2.05

Now I know they say you shouldn't restore these objects but I will get my local jeweller to put it back into ring shape. I don't really buy being mangled by the plough as part of its history.

I have managed a few finds last week. The field where I previously found gold staters has turned out to be almost barren, I've spent two afternoons on there and found little more than a 19th century horse harness buckle. Must have done a really good job on it last time around. I then had to run the gauntlet with the muckspreader but did manage an Urbs Roma commemorative AE3 c.350 (the one with the wolf and twins design), a plain but complete watch key and a small post medieval belt decoration. Another day on another field got me a small crotal bell, complete and still ringing and to round off the week a field I hadn't bothered with too much in the past produced a really nice 1oz London trade weight 1760-1826 and a 1350-1500 sword belt hanger buckle.