Something real research people don't do - courtesy of "WB."
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
One basic rule of archival research is that one NEVER writes anything on an original document. Users should see only what was part of the original, not some guess, opinion or assumption of a researcher.
The clipping below suggests a clear, and amazingly ignorant violation of the rule. It is from page 67 of 217 in a US Mint journal titled "Mint Cabinet Accounts." This lists most of the acquisitions and sources for the Mint Collection of coins from about 1856 to part of 1904. It is filled with interesting and informative information. It also has scattered annotations (red arrows), all made in the same handwriting, and some accompanied with the initials "WB." Readers can decide for themselves who "WB" was.
4
Comments
I've seen quite a lot of Walter Breen's handwriting. The handwriting of this person you call "WB" looks quite similar.
As distasteful as this is, it does tell us that "WB" looked at the archival documents and recalled seeing the specific coins in the Smithsonian.
I believe I can "unhesitatingly declare" who it is. Pity he saw fit to mark that up.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
He also wrote on the copper account book.
Thanks for pointing this out. Unacceptable behavior.
Roger -- in this case I agree with you. Whoever WB is, and it is most likely Walter Breen, have no right to mark up old documents. It becomes a distraction to the content of the original.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Unfortunately, there are many other "corrections" and comments. The problem here is not whether or not the comments are accurate, it is the alteration of original history. People in some future generation might not be able to make a plausible identification of "WB" and possibly be misled into thinking it was contemporary with the original entry.
You are right Roger. Do you feel that this is something that Breen did to the near exclusion of other researchers?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
There is no full signature or pasted in portrait in the journal, so I'll leave it to Coinosaurus, Messydesk and others more familiar with long-gone personalities to decipher the culprit.
JD or Denga will have to testify if the two gold pieces are "brilliant proof" or something else -- like ham sandwiches.
RE: "Do you feel that this is something that Breen did to the near exclusion of other researchers?"
There are fields where long-gone people made notes on originals. Numismatics generally seems to be free of this, although a lot of letters have pencil notes, comments and brackets - nearly all seem to be contemporary with the document's date. All of the Paschal and Taxay documents I've seen are identifiable by paper tabs or repro slips bracketing the document. These are still used when selecting pages for copying or where a photo is needed that the research cannot make. (Example: Eastman Johnson's original B&W negatives are in a NARA file and can only be removed by an approved contractor who will make prints.)
I agree it's a no no.
At least he was responsible enough to add his initials,
which should make it pretty easy for most later researchers to identify who wrote it and roughly when.
Certainly nobody here, 50 or 60 years later, had any trouble identifying who WB was.
100 or 200 years from now it will be the same.
Even though it was a poor decision,
it is an indication that he wanted to share his knowledge with others.
Sort of like a 1950s or 1960s version of an online coin forum.
Man, I thought WB was Warner Brothers till i read the thread.
Pete
I though of Wiley/Bugert ubntil I saw the paper was not about Seated halves.
"WB" = "Wascally B'wabbit"
RE: "it is an indication that he wanted to share his knowledge with others. Sort of like a 1950s or 1960s version of an online coin forum."
I think of it as a way WB tried to control information. He was not sharing information but co-opting it. By entering his own conclusions, he biased others and influenced their research. It was more than one dog peeing on a hydrant to let another dog know he was there.
Sharing information almost always involves some degree of editing.
When you publish, you are trying to help share what you think is useful info to others.
Sure, sometimes it is fun to say you were the first person to discover it, or to reach the correct conclusion.
The invitation is always implied that others can verify / reproduce what you found.
It's the responsibility of later researchers to try to limit bias from material in prior publications
and use the primary sources when economical.
I am no handwriting expert, and I do not wish to reopen the flame wars of this other thread, but I offer this as an example of Walter Breen's handwriting:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1004182/1917-mpl-lincoln-head-wheat-cent-certified-by-anacs-in-1977/p1
There is no doubt that it was Breen, even if the styles of the WB are different.
TD
Anyone who writes on a historic document is an arrogant a**.
No different than vandalizing hieroglyphs. Unfortunately, there is no way to remove them without causing more damage. Similar to the Indian hieroglyphs on Independence Rock, which was later written on by Pioneers on the Oregon Trail.
yosclimber - Good points. However, the material WB defaced were not publications. They were/are public property and public resources which must stand on their original content and format. Copying and scribbling away on a copy is fine.....
Such a shame to see original, historical documents defaced. I have always marked or commented in text books I used for studies... but that is much different than marking on historical research documentation. The identification of the note maker is fairly obvious. Cheers, RickO
Be careful applying today's standards to yesterday's practices. A lot of things used to be done that wouldn't be done today, and vice-versa.
In 50 years, who's to say what we all do now, won't be taboo.
The way the world is going right now, in 50 years I don't think anyone will care.
Pete
Current research standards for handling archival materials are similar to those in academic use for the past century or more. "WB's" notations were as wrong then as now. But, back then, there was much less observation and curators more trusting of users to behave correctly.
Well here is a new derogatory moniker that you have coined for the late Walter Breen to go along with your derogatory “Wally Breen”! To what purpose? Would be just as bad as me referring to you as that esteemed numismatic researcher
"Birdie Birdette”!, which I will not do.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Am I correct in assuming those notes are in ink, not pencil (not that pencil would be that much less bad, but ink is more like an intentional permanence)?
The notes and "WB" initials are in ink. Today, ink pens of any type for prohibited; NARA, LoC and others provide pencils and note paper. Staff members constantly patrol the reading rooms looking for violations of procedure.
The identification of "WB" as "Walter Breen" is speculative since none of the notations are signed. BUFFNIXX is off-base in his accusations.
True. Thalidomide comes to mind. Not to mention Fen-Phen.
It's probably not Wonder Boy.
Agree with Roger that one should NEVER write anything on an original document. Government or private archives could highly restrict or curtail access if the problem was severe enough.
I highly recommend this book about archive abuse at its worst, a crook stole millions of dollars of maps from various archives, was eventually caught, convicted, and is serving time:
The Map Thief: The Gripping Story of an Esteemed Rare-Map Dealer Who Made Millions Stealing Priceless Maps
Archives now have much better security and watch researchers more closely because of the above. I am always closely watched at the National Archive in Seattle or Philadelphia. At the Library Company of Philadelphia, a security person was at the table when I was researching some rare books. I was fine with it.