Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of US Coins........corrections
AUandAG
Posts: 24,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here's the deal. We all know that Breen made mistakes in his book. Post your KNOWN mistakes here for us to change our reference books to reflect the most accurate information.
bob 
Pg 442
5485
1870-CC
Change "First released Feb 10 (3747)" to First released Feb 3rd (3747).
This information was published in a local (to Carson City) newspaper. Fred Weinberg has the article.
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
3
Comments
I suspect there are too many to make the effort of collecting them worthwhile. ;(
I have a feeling that a Breen Encyclopedia Corrigenda would be a fairly substantial publication of its own.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
NOW THIS IS AN EXCELLENT UNDERTAKING!!! Best Post Nomination!
@messydesk said:
@messydesk What can you add?
Unfortunately the “mistake” posted above is not a mistake at all. I am posting
the official delivery record for early 1870 at Carson City and it very clearly says
February 10 for the silver dollars. Sometimes the official date of delivery
followed the actual date (for legal reasons) and it may also be true that the
newspaper was wrong.
Assuming that the coins were paid out before the official delivery (which is far
from proven) the question is then which date is correct and is it wrong to use
the official date.
I have seen, on quite a few occasions, “corrections” to the Breen work which were
simply wrong and Breen right. It will be interesting to see what other “errors” will
be posted.
with apologies to Denga, this image version might be a bit easier to read.
So, let me understand this.....The Newspaper and reporter had them in hand and posted about them in the news a week before they were minted? Nah, don't believe that for one sec.
bob
I look forward to all forum members with knowledge of these errors to commit their info to this forum's post in its regards. I would love to correct errors in my copy of his book. I think this would be a benefit to many owning his book, regardless of the size. If by chance you know of documentation of a hundred such errors, post them once a week until done, thus not wasting too much of your time. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
There are so many Dimes and other coins he listed as rare that aren't....it would be way too much of an undertaking to list them all.
And that's just another dimension of mistakes. I can't fault someone too much for making assumptions about rarity based on observations, only to have it turn out that they over- or underestimated, but if you're trying to correct other information that is flat out wrong or fabricated, you then have to examine everything so that omitting a minor correction doesn't become interpreted as validation of a mistake.
I suspect if I were to scour the section on Morgan dollars and post a correction of his work here, I would say, "Never mind. Use these other references instead." At that point, assembling and publishing a corrigenda would really serve no purpose other than gloating. Let Breen's Encyclopedia be superseded by other well-known and respected works, and move on.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT RAREITY!! Picking on an author about errors such as this made decades ago is pure BS nonsense! Not my opinion - FACT. Heck, if you want to write about misstatements and errors of omission lets pick apart some auction catalogues.
Since the 1980's all I have heard from some of my coworkers (two in particular) is Breen was a dunce and his work is FILLED WITH ERRORS. I am ignorant on the subject as I have not read the entire book.
Let's post some actual errors!
What books were in print at the same time as his? I in no way wish to support to Breen's book, only to ask if the printed books with more accurate details were in print at the same time. Most certainly, knowledge is always corrected by professional research and factual data, but if one's data is far older than others then their will always be mistakes made. If data supports claims of the book being worthless then I will be one of the first to destroy mine and utilize others without the worthless data in its contents. I would like a list of those books with the same but more accurate information.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Note the Breen text is not 1st date of minting. It's 1st Date of release. They could have minted them in January and not released them until February 10 and Breen would be correct.
Do you have the actual text of the newspaper? Were they simply visiting the Mint to observe striking or they actually took a dollar home.
FredWeinberg has the actual article from the newspaper. I copied it but have since lost that copy on my hard drive. So perhaps Fred would be so kind to post the article here. I remember that it was that the reporter actually had them in hand. The post above shows what coins were sent to the east for assay and does not, in my opinion, have anything to do with the minting of them.
bob
The problem is that AUandAG is not aware of the way coins were minted and
reported. Some points that may clear this up, or make it more confusing:
1) The dollar dies were received in Carson City on January 10, 1870.
2) Trial strikings, to get the presses ready for full-scale coinage, would have
occurred in early February and it is possible, or even likely, that one or more
these trial strikes was shown to a reporter, thus the February 3 date. The
remainder of the coins were struck when the planchets were ready and
delivered on February 10.
3) The official delivery of the entire lot of silver dollars was on February 10,
as shown on the page I posted.
4) We do not know that the newspaper account was accurate. The Carson
papers were inaccurate on occasion as, for example, in early 1872. The 1872
obverse dies were late that year but coinage did occur prior to their arrival.
The reporter claimed that obverse dies had been borrowed from San Francisco
and the planchets struck only on one side. When the reverse dies arrived
later the half-finished coins were struck on the other side. The story is
nonsense but does show a loose regard for accuracy among the Carson
reporters.
5) The document reproduced above shows the date of delivery of the finished
coins. AUandAG needs to read the report again as the meaning is clear. The
dates of delivery are separate from the reserved assay pieces.
Insider2 has made a perceptive post in that current auction catalogues are ‘easy
pickings’ to find errors of all kinds. He goes on to note: Let's post some actual
errors!
Considering the remarks directed at Breen by a number of people, and
questioning his overall accuracy, I expected a large number of errors posted
yet the only one actually posted, by AUandAG, falls flat and is not an error.
Did Breen make errors? Of course he did and I have seen a reasonable number.
I have no doubt that there are more, especially for material after 1900 where
his sources were often less than perfect. The blanket attacks, however, require
detailed proof and I have seen precious little of that.
Who owns the copyright? it might be time for a 2nd edition
OK.
Almost all of the background material for the new coinage designs from 1905-1922 is completely invented -- a set of overt lies.
Breen's material relating to Barber and Saint-Gaudens is largely lies.
His material on proof coins is filled with guesses and more lies.
These are obvious samples made worse because he claimed to have done meaningful research, yet he had access to all the presently available documents in one place -- NARA in Washington, DC. (Now, they are split up by region and require much work to build a complete picture.) In RG104 E-229 boxes brimming with letters and reports dealing with the Saint-Gaudens coinage, are marking tabs on which the names of Taxay and Paschal appear - but none for Breen. He quotes letters that sit within 1/4-inch of ones of equal or greater information importance, yet is silent.
Just these little examples of intentional lies - by themselves - tell me that nothing Breen wrote after 1960 can be trusted. We cannot tell what is an honest error and what is invented "infill." His is not a voice of authority - just another insecure mouse squeaking at a bit of cheese.
Denga's Carson Mint example and follow-up, are excellent examples of what can be done by knowledgeable, objective, and completely honest scholarship. One must also understand the context of original materials, and my impression is that Walter Breen did not come close to that level of research objectivity and knowledge.
I'll add one other comment ---
Denga's articles from the 1960 and 70s often omit source references; and like anything else, they include some errors. But, they are highly reliable and trustworthy, because his entire body of work rests on truth and honesty. A legitimate error can be corrected; a lie can only be excised as the intellectual cancer it is.
Walter Breen's work does not stand this basic test of trustworthiness. He never matured into an adult with clear emotional and ethical values. His very limited biography suggests a man-child-puppet ready to do as his puppet master wishes as soon as a hand is shoved inside.
This is going to be a LONG thread.
No one thinks that auction catalogs are objective, and I would expect (like any other pieces of sales literature) for it to have a cheery and optimistic pro-seller message that may not necessarily be grounded in reality. You would not expect this from a normal numismatic researcher.
P.S. I have no problem with an occasional honest error. I do have problems with the portions that are fabricated and probably written during one of Breen's drug induced highs.
The info in Breen's Proof Encyclopedia on proof Liberty Seated Half Dimes is very good - still the best source by far
(although there are very few sources!).
Occasionally when there are 2 proof die marriages for a date, he has the rarity swapped.
But given that his reference was the fairly low resolution 1931 Valentine plates, his work is still pretty amazing.
It's true that some of the early proofs are borderline (could be proof, or could be MS - a judgement call).
That continues to this day.
For example, the 1847 V-2 Eliasberg was slabbed as PCGS PR-67 in the Gardner sale, and is now PCGS MS-67.
I use Breen's work as a list of "things to look for". Since he did so much work, there will be errors, apparently more in some places than in others. Often he was good about citing primary sources, so those can be checked if you have access. All this applies to published works by others as well. He saw a lot of liberty seated half dime proofs during his years in NYC, and he took notes.
Best Posthumous Nomination.
If you get a sticker, you don't need to research anything.
@cameonut2011 said: "No one thinks that auction catalogs are objective, and I would expect (like any other pieces of sales literature) for it to have a cheery and optimistic pro-seller message that may not necessarily be grounded in reality. You would not expect this from a normal numismatic researcher."
Apples and oranges!
APPLES: I brought up auctions to demonstrate that Breens book is not the only place to find a large amount of "STUFF." A coin's rarity can change. A coin's value can change. Even a coin's mintage can change. I find that the listings of the individual coins and varieties in the book are pretty good. There have been many new varieties discovered that are not in the book - another thing that can change.
ORANGES: The post by Roger, outlining errors made by doing what appears to be less than adequate research are things that would rarely change if what was written were true. I have posted that I did not read most of the info on each series and coin type. Therefore I'm not qualified to comment on the errors, fluff, and fantasy that may exist in those sections of the book. If this is the case throughout the book, than comments are justified; however, IMO these comments should be more specific (Per Roger, Many things Breen wrote about Barber and St. Gaudens have been proven to be inaccurate) rather than condemn the entire book.
Did something happen to Messydesk?
@insider2 - I disagree. Breen was a nut job that was a big fan of mind altering drugs like LSD and who believed he was reincarnated from the mythical island of Atlantis. His delusions and fantasies also appear to have spread to his numismatic works, but let's get back to errata in his coin books.
@cameonut2011 I AGREE with you. No sane person who ever heard stories of Breen could argue with anything said in this thread about the man. I've heard many of the stories from folks who were there to observe them. I'll bet some her could even tell stories of dinners and drugs.
I consider myself fortunate to have made his EXTREMELY FLAWED acquaintance. He helped me and the Certification Service I worked for a great deal. He was always a likeable, knowledgeable guy around me (a rookie authenticator at the time) and in the two times he and I crossed swords on a coin (Omega and overstruck Territorial Gold $5) I schooled him! He took it as a gentleman.
The man is dead. He has left both a name and a numismatic legacy that very few members of this forum will ever be close to achieving.
I agree with your post and the comments from others. Now, let's get back to errata in his books. So far, Roger is one of the few who have commented.
You two crossed swords?
I wish I could claim that I was intelligent enough to leave a "hidden pun" in a post but I'm not. It was a Freudian slip.
This space intentionally left blank.
I'm not dead yet.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Many years ago I had lunch with Walter at an ANA summer seminar, me and my coin buddies. Roger Cohen had recently passed away, so I brought up the subject, since Breen and Cohen had both written extensively about half cents. Breen's comment: : "Good riddance to bad rubbish". I'm sorry but I can't separate the man from his work.
AFAIK, Cohen's work on half cents came before Breen's. The Breen book is well done and is four times thicker than Cohen's. Strange that Breen should be like that as he may have used Cohen as a jumping off starting point.
Fittingly, now Breen is being accused of writing "rubbish." Cohen is probably smiling from the grave.
One thing I will add. After I became a "rookie" authenticator, I quickly realized how much "rubbish" littered the field of authentication and brashly stated that fact. Some of us can be abrasive at times due to our frustration and low tolerance for the ignorance of "Ex-Perts."
****COPY post from different thread****
@Washingtoniana said:
« hide previous quotes
@BStrauss3 said:
https://coinweek.com/education/confronting-breen/
WTF? so he wasn't only a serial pedophile, he was an open advocate of pederasty, helped form NAMBLA, wrote books about man-boy love, spoke at pedophile conferences, etc.
...and was still welcome in the coin industry
I normally would not comment on a subject such as this.
I do own a copy of the book in question and have to say that I would not trust the info contained therein...
Last, to all persons involved, do you have children?
Think about that for one minute...
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
Under significant pressure from The Wife, I just put my Breen to good use.....
Dropped from a height of about 3 feet, it will kill even the largest of roaches.
(Absolutely true story.
)
Do you know what these roach killers sell for in good condition?
Still has the dust cover on it! Wiped it clean, good as new.....well....good as used.
Wife: "Don't do that with your book!"
Me: "Are you kidding? There are a couple of Breen threads on the message board. This is PERFECT!"
A pristine dust cove is part of the value! Lucky it squashed roach wiped off that slick surface.
I stopped dropping books once I got checked out on this
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Anyone who wants to criticize Breen should write their own book first. One should properly appreciate the process of original research before throwing stones. A few on this thread are thus qualified.
Also understand why Breen takes more potshots than any other numismatic writer - it's because his encyclopedia was THE de facto reference. Does the book have problems? Of course it does. But if it was so easy, how come it's been 30 years and no equivalent has appeared?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I bought my Breen Encyclopedia in the early 90's for $99 from Bowers & Merena. At the time it was helpful, but I then discovered the Cherrypicker's Guide and found I didn't really look at the Encyclopedia much any more. The hobby also moved away from the variety numbering system in it, in favor of Fivaz-Stanton and systems from other researchers, and the book became even more useless to me. I finally sold it a few years ago for $200, doubling my money.
THE ONLY BOOK YOULL EVER NEED, ROGGGER
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"