If I found a brick of solid gold with no indication of ownership on the side of the street

[septimus]

@Johnny_L.A

If a poor person lost it, it should be given back. If a rich person lost it, I’d say just keep it.

IIRC bricks of gold mislaid by poor persons tend to be smallish bricks.

@Darren_Garrison

So yes, if you show up with a ring that is higher purity than 24k, someone that tested it could know that something was up.

What’s the difference between the 99.9 test and the 99.99 test? Does 99.99 gold have significantly different texture or flexibility than 99.9 gold? Anyway, my guess is that the 99.9 tester would never notice that the item is 99.99

@Chronos

… in some jurisdictions, the gold itself must be turned over to the government, but the finder (not the property owner) is entitled to compensation in the amount of the gold’s value, so long as the finder had a legitimate reason to be on the land when it was found. IIRC, there was a case in England where the finder was hired to work some farmland, and in the course of plowing discovered a Roman treasure trove. The landowner tried to claim ownership, but in the end the plowman got the money.

(Ninja’ed by Pazu.) This sounded familiar, but in the story I recalled (posted 6 weeks ago at SDMB) the ploughman got cheated. (The 14-day deadline to report the treasure had expired.)

@Darren_Garrison

My knowledge of the regulations continued with The Detectorists but began with The Mildenhall Treasure by Roald Dahl. (Here is a PDF of the full article.)