@Maywood said:
Wow, the indignation that comes with self-righteousness can be amazing!!
I should point out that Mr. Breen died in 1993, so yes, it was a lifetime ago when all this took place, more than 30 years. Yet it keeps getting dredged up. To your point of it being well known and the ANA did nothing, Mr. Sheldon was well known as a thief and yet the ANA did nothing. Finally, youthful indiscretions don't earn the wrath of culture cancel, but I think you know that.
I don't defend Mr. Breen or Mr. Sheldon, but I don't believe it does any good to continue to run them down when they've been dead this many years.
I think that is the salient point. Not only is Breen dead, but most of those who may have failed to punish him are dead. > @Project Numismatics said:
@Maywood said:
Wow, the indignation that comes with self-righteousness can be amazing!!
I should point out that Mr. Breen died in 1993, so yes, it was a lifetime ago when all this took place, more than 30 years. Yet it keeps getting dredged up. To your point of it being well known and the ANA did nothing, Mr. Sheldon was well known as a thief and yet the ANA did nothing. Finally, youthful indiscretions don't earn the wrath of culture cancel, but I think you know that.
I don't defend Mr. Breen or Mr. Sheldon, but I don't believe it does any good to continue to run them down when they've been dead this many years.
But you are defending him. And preying on children is indefensible.
It appears unclear whether Sheldon was a thief and/or whether that was known to or suspected by the ANA at the time. To my knowledge, he was not even arrested much less convicted in a court of law of theft.
You do know that NAMBLA still exists. Rather than wasting your indignation on dead people, you could spend some time on an active organization.
@Namvet69 said:
Appears his academic accomplishments overshadowed his antisocial behavior amongst his peers.
@yosclimber said:
Your judgement is essentially that he should not be forgiven.
Some people are capable of forgiving far worse crimes, such as murder.
Forgiving is not the same as forgetting or approval.
It is related to a person's values, not so much their "judgement and credibility".
It's a personal choice, and some people choose not to do it. That is fine.
I do not fully appreciate what act the supporters of Breen were purportedly forgiving, Perhaps a breach of friendship—as none were direct victims of Breen’s crimes.
I do not think public acclimation of an Award of "Numismatist Scholar of the Twentieth Century" is any part of the forgiveness process of crimes committed against others. I see no benefit following from that award to the actual victims of notorious crimes. Only to the perpetrator. That, is a decision of inexcusably bad judgment.
I really can not find any excusable reasons for the complete failure in judgement as to acclaim such a person, in public, in print. No matter how it might be spun, they knowing celebrated, and continued collaboration. That is a failure under any standard I am familiar with. `
In my discipline, and in the subjects, I have published, judgment is key to character, and character is a key to credibility.
My point in posting was to provide information that I was surprised to find when I was looking into a separate subject. It is relevant to some decisions made by some figures seen as authorities in numismatics. Inexcusably poor, under any kind of known, even quasi, professional standard.
Anyone can make as much, some, or little of it, as he see fit.
Thank you to many for the courtesies-- enjoyed the forum. I am out.
I'm not going to continue reading this thread. BOTTOM LINE: @JCH22 I don't care what you think about Breen or his supporters!
@PerryHall said:
There have been other threads here concerning Breen's criminal perversions. I remember seeing him at coin shows in his bright tie-dyed shirts and lederhosen which caused him to stand out in the crowd. One poster in one of the past threads said that there were ANA members who volunteered to follow Breen around the bourse room floor to make sure that he didn't prey on any of the young volunteer pages so I think it's wrong to say "the ANA did nothing".
That sounds like ANA members took it upon themselves to try to mitigate the risk. That is not the same as the organization taking official action.
I am an ANA member, but my decisions and actions do not constitute official actions by the ANA.
What "official action" should the ANA have taken that wouldn't have resulted in a possible lawsuit against the ANA? Can they just ban him from their coin shows which are open to the general public?
This is an excellent point, and shows some of the potential problems associated with viewing historical events through a modern lens. The complete and disturbing record of Breen's life is known now but not then.
And remember that all of this occurred pre-internet. Information was infinitely tougher to come by back then.
Did you not read the personal experiences posted above? Parents and adults at the time were actively protecting their children from him. It was known at the time and he was convicted at the time.
Child predation has was wrong and illegal then as it is now - this isn’t an issue of today’s standard vs the standard in 1980 or 1990.
What was known? That he was a convicted child molester? Or that people were uneasy with him being around children because he was a bit of a weirdo? As far as I know (and I am not an expert on Breen) it was more likely the latter.
According to Wikipedia, his earliest charges and conviction resulted in probation, and "a further molestation conviction may have occurred in 1964." So, the record was far from complete in terms of the public's awareness.
The big charges and conviction occurred in 1990, at the end of his life. Until then most people probably just knew him as that flamboyant creepy dude who gave them the willies. And while that might be a reason to stay away from him, it's not exactly legally actionable evidence. That was true then and it is especially true today.
None of this is to defend Breen. But the rush to smear others who were prominent in numismatics in the same era might not be justified.
@Maywood said:
Wow, the indignation that comes with self-righteousness can be amazing!!
I should point out that Mr. Breen died in 1993, so yes, it was a lifetime ago when all this took place, more than 30 years. Yet it keeps getting dredged up. To your point of it being well known and the ANA did nothing, Mr. Sheldon was well known as a thief and yet the ANA did nothing. Finally, youthful indiscretions don't earn the wrath of culture cancel, but I think you know that.
I don't defend Mr. Breen or Mr. Sheldon, but I don't believe it does any good to continue to run them down when they've been dead this many years.
I think that is the salient point. Not only is Breen dead, but most of those who may have failed to punish him are dead. > @Project Numismatics said:
@Maywood said:
Wow, the indignation that comes with self-righteousness can be amazing!!
I should point out that Mr. Breen died in 1993, so yes, it was a lifetime ago when all this took place, more than 30 years. Yet it keeps getting dredged up. To your point of it being well known and the ANA did nothing, Mr. Sheldon was well known as a thief and yet the ANA did nothing. Finally, youthful indiscretions don't earn the wrath of culture cancel, but I think you know that.
I don't defend Mr. Breen or Mr. Sheldon, but I don't believe it does any good to continue to run them down when they've been dead this many years.
But you are defending him. And preying on children is indefensible.
It appears unclear whether Sheldon was a thief and/or whether that was known to or suspected by the ANA at the time. To my knowledge, he was not even arrested much less convicted in a court of law of theft.
You do know that NAMBLA still exists. Rather than wasting your indignation on dead people, you could spend some time on an active organization.
I’m not here to discuss topics unrelated to numismatics or numismatists.
Are you aware of any numismatists alive today who have been convicted of abusing children and are still permitted to interact with YN at Summer Seminar or ANA shows?
If we can’t spend time condemning the crimes of dead numismatists then maybe we shouldn’t spend time praising the good behavior of dead numismatists either. Crimes that were pursued within numismatics forums. It cuts both ways.
You do know that NAMBLA still exists. Rather than wasting your indignation on dead people, you could spend some time on an active organization.
This reminds me of the people in recent years who seem to have only now discovered that slavery existed in the US up until 1865. They protest with all the vigor and militancy that would have been meaningful a hundred and sixty years ago.
But they do not paint one sign or chant one slogan to address the slavery that exists now. There is more slavery in the world today - right at this moment - than in all years combined of the slavery era in the US, yet the historical events elicit the anger rather than the ongoing atrocities.
You do know that NAMBLA still exists. Rather than wasting your indignation on dead people, you could spend some time on an active organization.
This reminds me of the people in recent years who seem to have only now discovered that slavery existed in the US up until 1865. They protest with all the vigor and militancy that would have been meaningful a hundred and sixty years ago.
But they do not paint one sign or chant one slogan to address the slavery that exists now. There is more slavery in the world today - right at this moment - than in all years combined of the slavery era in the US, yet the historical events elicit the anger rather than the ongoing atrocities.
Off topic, this is a forum about coins, numismatics and numismatists.
@FlyingAl said:
Today, many of the researchers who have fact checked him have found that he seems to have done more damage than good with his works.
Interesting. Please name the researchers and indicate the facts which they checked and found to be wrong.
I believe you yourself can count yourself among their number.
Wrong. Please name the researchers and the errors that you claim prove that Breen did more damage than good. Walter did make errors but they were generally minor and I discussed them with him by mail or phone. It was not possible for discussions at conventions due to the crowd of collectors asking him questions, wanting an autograph, &&.
I know of no published material by qualified researchers stating that he did more harm than good.
You do know that NAMBLA still exists. Rather than wasting your indignation on dead people, you could spend some time on an active organization.
This reminds me of the people in recent years who seem to have only now discovered that slavery existed in the US up until 1865. They protest with all the vigor and militancy that would have been meaningful a hundred and sixty years ago.
But they do not paint one sign or chant one slogan to address the slavery that exists now. There is more slavery in the world today - right at this moment - than in all years combined of the slavery era in the US, yet the historical events elicit the anger rather than the ongoing atrocities.
Off topic, this is a forum about coins, numismatics and numismatists.
@Maywood said:
Wow, the indignation that comes with self-righteousness can be amazing!!
I should point out that Mr. Breen died in 1993, so yes, it was a lifetime ago when all this took place, more than 30 years. Yet it keeps getting dredged up. To your point of it being well known and the ANA did nothing, Mr. Sheldon was well known as a thief and yet the ANA did nothing. Finally, youthful indiscretions don't earn the wrath of culture cancel, but I think you know that.
I don't defend Mr. Breen or Mr. Sheldon, but I don't believe it does any good to continue to run them down when they've been dead this many years.
But you are defending him. And preying on children is indefensible.
It appears unclear whether Sheldon was a thief and/or whether that was known to or suspected by the ANA at the time. To my knowledge, he was not even arrested much less convicted in a court of law of theft.
No one is defending Breen’s unsavory other life. And, yes, it is clear about Sheldon though it was the ANS that was involved, not the ANA.
If we fail to remember history we will make the same mistakes.
It is not a courageous thing to say we do not approve of that behavior. The courageous thing to do would be to not support him, no matter the relationship with the perpetrator.
A dealer I knew and did business with in the 1980’s, 1990’s and early 2000’s told me that he had to watch over his young son at coin shows to make sure that Breen was never near him, including when his son was using the restroom and Breen walked into it.
Apparently Breen’s child abuse was common knowledge to many hobbyists.
1) I was not looking into Breen when I found what I posted.
2) I was not seeking to rehash Breen’s extreme crimes. Breen’s crimes have been discussed before. I do not believe this AWARD has been covered before.
3) I was shocked to find that he received an AWARD like that AFTER he was CONVICTED for the THIRD time.
4) I did not seek to ascribe wrongdoing to others for those crimes—e.g. crime by association. What I wrote about was the actions of some to AWARD a three-time felon, and to publicly do so. That to me is the definition of bad judgment. The issue to me is the DECISION made by those who thought it proper to bestow the AWARD.
5) I was seeking to share information that some, in my view, exercised the worst kind of judgment when they KNOWLINGLY bestowed an AWARD on Breen a little less than a year AFTER he was convicted for the THIRD time.- and one year into his 10 year sentence.
6) I was shocked and dismayed to see attempts to minizine and distract from the decision to bestow a specific AWARD as some kind of act of forgiveness. This group was forgiving Breen's crimes? That is a non sequitur, to me.
7) In your personal life, up to each to forgive a person.
8) My opinion---No professional should be in the business of acclaiming and “forgiving” monstrous repeated acts like Breen’s, months after his THIRD conviction, while he sits in jail, while the crimes and the harm to the victim is still fresh.
9) I was dumbfounded that one of the signatories appeared and tried to put my unrelated scholarship on trial to justify his own bad decision. Even if I am the worse writer to have ever published in fields separate from numismatics, his decision was his own and unrelated to me and my separate work. I saw no explanation, remorse, or retraction. Only an attack on me.
10) Rather than own such a decision, explain why it was done, or perhaps even retract it, I was attacked, and there seemed, to me, to be a double down and future attacks by others.
As to forgiveness, again, the subject is not about Breen’s crimes.
Perhaps forgiveness could be extended to those who exercised the bad judgment to bestow such AWARD on Breen after his THIRD conviction. But apparently, those involved in the AWARD ask for none, and think it justified to attack the person who merely published attachments (their own documents) related to their own decisions.
My distaste for the reaction by some was so great, my reaction was to bail out. I can see by some subsequent posts, that decision may have been premature.
Again, the issue for me was the DECISION by those involved to AWARD Breen.
So I guess the questions is :
1) Was the award appropriate, and if that is possibly so,, how?
2) Why was it never retracted?
3) What effect does bad judgment like that have on the body of work those signatories wrote. I have my opinions about that which I have already expressed. Others may disagree or have a different take.
Gentlemen, again the post was not meant to rehash Breen’s actions. Anyone is of course free to write whatever they like. My purpose to have a discussion about the AWARD.
I just read the letter in its entirety and noted the date. I guess it was written to cheer up a man dying in prison, one who had contributed much to numismatics. I can appreciate the sentiment, endorsed by numismatists who are and were well-respected and honorable people, but I think it was nonetheless misguided. I noted the sentence regarding Breen’s respect for other numismatists. During my brief encounter with him I asked him about Roger Cohen, who had recently died. His response: “good riddance to bad rubbish”.
My point in rehashing this: don’t turn a blind eye, regardless.
The question I have with the letter that @denga (who is an absolute world-class researcher and who has my deep admiration) among others signed is whether the letter was written and signed before or after Breen pled guilty to the charges he faced. If before, then I can see where the signers might have presumed "innocent until proven guilty". If after, I think the letter probably should not have been written.
@FlyingAl said:
Today, many of the researchers who have fact checked him have found that he seems to have done more damage than good with his works.
Interesting. Please name the researchers and indicate the facts which they checked and found to be wrong.
I believe you yourself can count yourself among their number.
Wrong. Please name the researchers and the errors that you claim prove that Breen did more damage than good. Walter did make errors but they were generally minor and I discussed them with him by mail or phone. It was not possible for discussions at conventions due to the crowd of collectors asking him questions, wanting an autograph, &&.
I know of no published material by qualified researchers stating that he did more harm than good.
There is no benefit to discussing this any more in my opinion. No agreement is going to be reached, there’s nothing for anyone to gain, and for that reason I’d like to agree to disagree.
@Mark said:
The question I have with the letter that @denga (who is an absolute world-class researcher and who has my deep admiration) among others signed is whether the letter was written and signed before or after Breen pled guilty to the charges he faced. If before, then I can see where the signers might have presumed "innocent until proven guilty". If after, I think the letter probably should not have been written.
Breen's Third plea conviction was in 1991. The award was bestowed in 1992, and was mailed to Breen in prison.
1) I was not looking into Breen when I found what I posted.
2) I was not seeking to rehash Breen’s extreme crimes. Breen’s crimes have been discussed before. I do not believe this AWARD has been covered before.
3) I was shocked to find that he received an AWARD like that AFTER he was CONVICTED for the THIRD time.
4) I did not seek to ascribe wrongdoing to others for those crimes—e.g. crime by association. What I wrote about was the actions of some to AWARD a three-time felon, and to publicly do so. That to me is the definition of bad judgment. The issue to me is the DECISION made by those who thought it proper to bestow the AWARD.
5) I was seeking to share information that some, in my view, exercised the worst kind of judgment when they KNOWLINGLY bestowed an AWARD on Breen a little less than a year AFTER he was convicted for the THIRD time.- and one year into his 10 year sentence.
6) I was shocked and dismayed to see attempts to minizine and distract from the decision to bestow a specific AWARD as some kind of act of forgiveness. This group was forgiving Breen's crimes? That is a non sequitur, to me.
7) In your personal life, up to each to forgive a person.
8) My opinion---No professional should be in the business of acclaiming and “forgiving” monstrous repeated acts like Breen’s, months after his THIRD conviction, while he sits in jail, while the crimes and the harm to the victim is still fresh.
9) I was dumbfounded that one of the signatories appeared and tried to put my unrelated scholarship on trial to justify his own bad decision. Even if I am the worse writer to have ever published in fields separate from numismatics, his decision was his own and unrelated to me and my separate work. I saw no explanation, remorse, or retraction. Only an attack on me.
10) Rather than own such a decision, explain why it was done, or perhaps even retract it, I was attacked, and there seemed, to me, to be a double down and future attacks by others.
As to forgiveness, again, the subject is not about Breen’s crimes.
Perhaps forgiveness could be extended to those who exercised the bad judgment to bestow such AWARD on Breen after his THIRD conviction. But apparently, those involved in the AWARD ask for none, and think it justified to attack the person who merely published attachments (their own documents) related to their own decisions.
My distaste for the reaction by some was so great, my reaction was to bail out. I can see by some subsequent posts, that decision may have been premature.
Again, the issue for me was the DECISION by those involved to AWARD Breen.
So I guess the questions is :
1) Was the award appropriate, and if that is possibly so,, how?
2) Why was it never retracted?
3) What effect does bad judgment like that have on the body of work those signatories wrote. I have my opinions about that which I have already expressed. Others may disagree or have a different take.
Gentlemen, again the post was not meant to rehash Breen’s actions. Anyone is of course free to write whatever they like. My purpose to have a discussion about the AWARD.
Considering that the point of the original posting by JCH22 was a deliberate personal attack on those who signed the Rittenhouse letter I find JCH22 to be far less than honest in his response. I note that he still HIDES behind an anonymous handle. The letter was done more than 30 years ago and today no one remembers it except those choosing to make personal attacks on the signatories. (I had forgotten about it and suspect the other survivors do as well.) JCJ22 apparently considers himself the moral arbiter of our times.
Hiding behind an anonymous name and then whining about criticism is laughable.
If JCH22 expects the surviving signers to issue a retraction based on his nonsense postings he is in for a rude shock. We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
JCH22 says that my work, and that of others, is flawed because of signing the letter. I am sure that JCH22, having made this bizarre claim, will back it up with details. If he doesn’t ...
When is JCH22 going to identify himself and put his name and work up for criticism ?
1) I was not looking into Breen when I found what I posted.
2) I was not seeking to rehash Breen’s extreme crimes. Breen’s crimes have been discussed before. I do not believe this AWARD has been covered before.
3) I was shocked to find that he received an AWARD like that AFTER he was CONVICTED for the THIRD time.
4) I did not seek to ascribe wrongdoing to others for those crimes—e.g. crime by association. What I wrote about was the actions of some to AWARD a three-time felon, and to publicly do so. That to me is the definition of bad judgment. The issue to me is the DECISION made by those who thought it proper to bestow the AWARD.
5) I was seeking to share information that some, in my view, exercised the worst kind of judgment when they KNOWLINGLY bestowed an AWARD on Breen a little less than a year AFTER he was convicted for the THIRD time.- and one year into his 10 year sentence.
6) I was shocked and dismayed to see attempts to minizine and distract from the decision to bestow a specific AWARD as some kind of act of forgiveness. This group was forgiving Breen's crimes? That is a non sequitur, to me.
7) In your personal life, up to each to forgive a person.
8) My opinion---No professional should be in the business of acclaiming and “forgiving” monstrous repeated acts like Breen’s, months after his THIRD conviction, while he sits in jail, while the crimes and the harm to the victim is still fresh.
9) I was dumbfounded that one of the signatories appeared and tried to put my unrelated scholarship on trial to justify his own bad decision. Even if I am the worse writer to have ever published in fields separate from numismatics, his decision was his own and unrelated to me and my separate work. I saw no explanation, remorse, or retraction. Only an attack on me.
10) Rather than own such a decision, explain why it was done, or perhaps even retract it, I was attacked, and there seemed, to me, to be a double down and future attacks by others.
As to forgiveness, again, the subject is not about Breen’s crimes.
Perhaps forgiveness could be extended to those who exercised the bad judgment to bestow such AWARD on Breen after his THIRD conviction. But apparently, those involved in the AWARD ask for none, and think it justified to attack the person who merely published attachments (their own documents) related to their own decisions.
My distaste for the reaction by some was so great, my reaction was to bail out. I can see by some subsequent posts, that decision may have been premature.
Again, the issue for me was the DECISION by those involved to AWARD Breen.
So I guess the questions is :
1) Was the award appropriate, and if that is possibly so,, how?
2) Why was it never retracted?
3) What effect does bad judgment like that have on the body of work those signatories wrote. I have my opinions about that which I have already expressed. Others may disagree or have a different take.
Gentlemen, again the post was not meant to rehash Breen’s actions. Anyone is of course free to write whatever they like. My purpose to have a discussion about the AWARD.
Considering that the point of the original posting by JCH22 was a deliberate personal attack on those who signed the Rittenhouse letter I find JCH22 to be far less than honest in his response. I note that he still HIDES behind an anonymous handle. The letter was done more than 30 years ago and today no one remembers it except those choosing to make personal attacks on the signatories. (I had forgotten about it and suspect the other survivors do as well.) JCJ22 apparently considers himself the moral arbiter of our times.
Hiding behind an anonymous name and then whining about criticism is laughable.
If JCH22 expects the surviving signers to issue a retraction based on his nonsense postings he is in for a rude shock. We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
JCH22 says that my work, and that of others, is flawed because of signing the letter. I am sure that JCH22, having made this bizarre claim, will back it up with details. If he doesn’t ...
When is JCH22 going to identify himself and put his name and work up for criticism ?
The pursuit of victims appears to have occurred within the context of numismatics and that makes the discussion highly relevant. Several posters have said they personally feared for children’s safety during coin shows at the time. That fear appears justified based on the multiple criminal convictions. We should not give awards to people who are criminally harming our fellow collectors - especially YNs.
@denga said:
We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
He is not the only one who has difficulty understanding.
Or I suppose I could certainly be wrong. Glenn Holsonbake lives somewhat close to me and was very well regarded by many for decades. Should I head over there to see what awards he has received recently?
@denga said:
We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
He is not the only one who has difficulty understanding.
Or I suppose I could certainly be wrong. Glenn Holsonbake lives somewhat close to me and was very well regarded by many for decades. Should I head over there to see what awards he has received recently?
[In an earlier posting by lermish;] “In a separate note, setting aside his reprehensible crimes for a moment, I don't understand how Breen could be Numismatist of the Century when he just made up a significant amount of his research. Just straight from his imagination.”
I asked earlier that you prove that a significant amount of his research was made up. There was no answer. I ask again.
Assuming for the sake of argument any negative inference you care to make about me, now that your memory has been refreshed, do you still believe the decision---you, not I made-- to have been a correct one?
Did your group take into consideration the effect lauding Breen might have on his victims? Or, how celebrating a then currently incarcerated and repeated perpetrator of unspeakable crimes might reflect on the broader numismatic community? Were Breen's contributions of such a great magnitude as to offset these substantial harms in your view, then, and still today?
I expect nothing from you, or anyone else, related to a decision I played no role in. Portray me as you will. Your decision was and is your very own.
@denga said:
We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
He is not the only one who has difficulty understanding.
Or I suppose I could certainly be wrong. Glenn Holsonbake lives somewhat close to me and was very well regarded by many for decades. Should I head over there to see what awards he has received recently?
[In an earlier posting by lermish;] {In a separate note, setting aside his reprehensible crimes for a moment, I don't understand how Breen could be Numismatist of the Century when he just made up a significant amount of his research. Just straight from his imagination.”
I asked earlier that you prove that a significant amount of his research was made up. There was no answer. I ask again.
In short, I am a trade dollar specialist. There are many inaccuracies in the series that were not due to lack of information (like QDB's errors; honest mistakes based on the best available research) but that were due to Breen making up numbers. To quote @FlyingAl "There is no benefit to discussing this any more in my opinion."
I don't know you but you are clearly well regarded and known in the numismatic community. Acknowledging that, I find it befuddling that you did not post on this board for three years and choose to come back to specifically to defend an award given to a convicted and actively imprisoned pedophile.
Breen was an enormous force for numismatic research, and predominantly positive (despite my and many others' misgivings about large portions of that research). That being said, I agree with JCH22 that it showed shockingly poor judgement to honor that man at that time. To continue to defend that decision is astounding.
@denga said:
When is JCH22 going to identify himself and put his name and work up for criticism ?
In this day and age, one need not name themselves to stand behind their opinion. Having numismatic research to your name is respectable, but a lack of such does not render someone a nobody. That being said, I do not believe ANY amount of contribution to the hobby is enough to absolve a felon, let alone AWARD them in spite of it.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
@denga said:
We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
He is not the only one who has difficulty understanding.
Or I suppose I could certainly be wrong. Glenn Holsonbake lives somewhat close to me and was very well regarded by many for decades. Should I head over there to see what awards he has received recently?
[In an earlier posting by lermish;] {In a separate note, setting aside his reprehensible crimes for a moment, I don't understand how Breen could be Numismatist of the Century when he just made up a significant amount of his research. Just straight from his imagination.”
I asked earlier that you prove that a significant amount of his research was made up. There was no answer. I ask again.
In short, I am a trade dollar specialist. There are many inaccuracies in the series that were not due to lack of information (like QDB's errors; honest mistakes based on the best available research) but that were due to Breen making up numbers. To quote @FlyingAl "There is no benefit to discussing this any more in my opinion."
I don't know you but you are clearly well regarded and known in the numismatic community. Acknowledging that, I find it befuddling that you did not post on this board for three years and choose to come back to specifically to defend an award given to a convicted and actively imprisoned pedophile.
Breen was an enormous force for numismatic research, and predominantly positive (despite my and many others' misgivings about large portions of that research). That being said, I agree with JCH22 that it showed shockingly poor judgement to honor that man at that time. To continue to defend that decision is astounding.
Breen making up numbers ? Miscopied perhaps or from a bad source but I know his work well and cannot agree that he made up numbers. And even if true it is a very long ways from a significant amount of his research being made up as you claim.
A friend told me that a particular topic (on early coppers) was being discussed on this forum. I normally check every week or so but rarely find anything worth commenting on. While looking for the dollar thread I came across this posting from JCH22 which is nothing more than a personal attack on the letter signers. Why you would say that I came back specifically for this topic is baffling. Also one wonders why a three-year hiatus upsets you so much.
And I see another person who prefers making accusations anonymously. Must be catching.
@JBK said:
Do you run a background check on everyone you do business with? Do organizations usually do that before they bestow an award? 🤔
This was known - he was in jail.
Yes, at the end. But some here are suggesting that he should have been officially shunned long before then despite his legal history not necessarily being widely public knowledge.
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
@JBK said:
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
In most cases that would be true, but Breen was a well known researcher and well known in the numismatic community, I am sure that word of his conviction would/was well spread across the bourse floor. Even @denga has posted that Breen's crimes and personal life were well known to him.
A friend told me that a particular topic (on early coppers) was being discussed on this forum. I normally check every week or so but rarely find anything worth commenting on. While looking for the dollar thread I came across this posting from JCH22 which is nothing more than a personal attack on the letter signers. Why you would say that I came back specifically for this topic is baffling. It seems odd that you have been a member for many years and visit weekly but this is the first topic to elicit a response in three years
Also one wonders why a three-year hiatus upsets you so much. I said I was befuddled. What about befuddlement even slightly implies being upset?
And I see another person who prefers making accusations anonymously. Must be catching. I'm not anonymous, many members of this board know me in person and/or would vouch for me. Things have changed since letters to incarcerated pedophiles were typewritten and delivered by mail. And what accusations am I making? I stated that I believe you did and CONTINUE to show awful judgement in this matter. That's my opinion, not an accusation.*
I understand people can become increasingly recalcitrant with age, it's happening to me, but this is beyond the pale. So many strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks. I'm done with this thread.
@JBK said:
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
In most cases that would be true, but Breen was a well known researcher and well known in the numismatic community, I am sure that word of his conviction would/was well spread across the bourse floor. Even @denga has posted that Breen's crimes and personal life were well known to him.
@denga can confirm for us if he is so inclined, but I read his comments to suggest that they were aware that he had another potentially sordid life outside of numismatics, not necessarily that they knew about his possible convictions decades earlier.
Once again, the ultimate confirmation of Breen's crimes came in the form of the circa 1990/91 convictions which were at the end of his life. I doubt he spent all that much time circulating on the bourse floor during that time frame since he was soon off to prison.
Everyone here most likely encounters convicted felons on a weekly if not daily basis. There are celebrated stars or major achievers in most fields who are felons. I'm not in any way downplaying felonious behavior and especially not those of Breen's caliber, but they are out there living otherwise productive lives. (This addresses the idea that a felony conviction should be disqualifying. It does not address someone who is engaged in felonies on an ongoing basis).
A friend told me that a particular topic (on early coppers) was being discussed on this forum. I normally check every week or so but rarely find anything worth commenting on. While looking for the dollar thread I came across this posting from JCH22 which is nothing more than a personal attack on the letter signers. Why you would say that I came back specifically for this topic is baffling. It seems odd that you have been a member for many years and visit weekly but this is the first topic to elicit a response in three years
If you actually checked you would find that I often do not post for months or years at a time. 900 or so posts in more than 20 years is not exactly an overwhelming number.
Also one wonders why a three-year hiatus upsets you so much.
I said I was befuddled. What about befuddlement even slightly implies being upset?
And I see another person who prefers making accusations anonymously. Must be catching. I'm not anonymous, many members of this board know me in person and/or would vouch for me. Things have changed since letters to incarcerated pedophiles were typewritten and delivered by mail. And what accusations am I making? I stated that I believe you did and CONTINUE to show awful judgement in this matter. That's my opinion, not an accusation.*
Oh I see. In simply reporting what happened 30+ years I ago I continue to show bad judgement.
So you are not posting your name for all to know because letters to pedophiles were delivered by mail ?
I understand people can become increasingly recalcitrant with age, it's happening to me, but this is beyond the pale. So many strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks. I'm done with this thread.
@JBK said:
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
In most cases that would be true, but Breen was a well known researcher and well known in the numismatic community, I am sure that word of his conviction would/was well spread across the bourse floor. Even @denga has posted that Breen's crimes and personal life were well known to him.
@denga can confirm for us if he is so inclined, but I read his comments to suggest that they were aware that he had another potentially sordid life outside of numismatics, not necessarily that they knew about his possible convictions decades earlier.
Once again, the ultimate confirmation of Breen's crimes came in the form of the circa 1990/91 convictions which were at the end of his life. I doubt he spent all that much time circulating on the bourse floor during that time frame since he was soon off to prison.
Everyone here most likely encounters convicted felons on a weekly if not daily basis. There are celebrated stars or major achievers in most fields who are felons. I'm not in any way downplaying felonious behavior and especially not those of Breen's caliber, but they are out there living otherwise productive lives. (This addresses the idea that a felony conviction should be disqualifying. It does not address someone who is engaged in felonies on an ongoing basis).
I cannot speak for the others but I did not know of the earlier convictions. I did not know, also, that there was a daughter.
@JBK said:
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
In most cases that would be true, but Breen was a well known researcher and well known in the numismatic community, I am sure that word of his conviction would/was well spread across the bourse floor. Even @denga has posted that Breen's crimes and personal life were well known to him.
@denga can confirm for us if he is so inclined, but I read his comments to suggest that they were aware that he had another potentially sordid life outside of numismatics, not necessarily that they knew about his possible convictions decades earlier.
Once again, the ultimate confirmation of Breen's crimes came in the form of the circa 1990/91 convictions which were at the end of his life. I doubt he spent all that much time circulating on the bourse floor during that time frame since he was soon off to prison.
Everyone here most likely encounters convicted felons on a weekly if not daily basis. There are celebrated stars or major achievers in most fields who are felons. I'm not in any way downplaying felonious behavior and especially not those of Breen's caliber, but they are out there living otherwise productive lives. (This addresses the idea that a felony conviction should be disqualifying. It does not address someone who is engaged in felonies on an ongoing basis).
I cannot speak for the others but I did not know of the earlier convictions. I did not know, also, that there was a daughter.
Thanks for the confirmation. I believe you, and your answer was what I expected. It helps put things into perspective.
Just thought I'd weigh in before this thread inevitably gets locked.
I met and talked to Walter Breen at shows in the distant past but didn't know him enough to even call him an acquaintance. I have great respect for his body of numismatic work and knowledge but consider him to have been a deeply disturbed and reprehensible human being outside of the numismatic world.
All of that said, he's been dead 30 years; he served time in this world and if you are inclined to believe in such things, will certainly face consequences in the next...and threads like this dredging up the past for no real purpose really do nothing to further this hobby.
Maybe I’ll add something here that can help. When talking about Breen research and facts “hurting” the hobby, while I think certain things were innocent, his “fill ins” on colonial era coinage that have been proved wrong took 20 years to untangle because of the “prestigious” name attached to the research. Nobody necessarily in the 90s wanted to be the dissenter of the “Man”.
With that said we know now that much of his “facts” and research on colonials was completely wrong, in some cases VERY wrong. Seemingly to create happiness for certain “higher” numismatists coins than others.
But, that was at a time where things were different. No internet, no Newman portal. Etc. Newman himself was written about as the “Truth Seeker” though had also “skewed” some things towards his own personal holdings, I guess who doesn’t who takes the time to write and further numismatic study.
I think we all agree Walter was a tough person to stand up for at this point. Matter fact, when I was 8 years old, it took two dealers and my father (a very prominent collector) to get me away from him on his lap at a show in NJ.
I think the idea back then was to say his numismatic accomplishments (which are many) should be recognized. In today’s world everything is looked at with a fine toothed comb. Back then, ignoring outside issues for the benefit of education (which he was doing) was the way and easier:
There are never going to be agreements over Walter. He is just a figure of the past, like Sheldon. Best left that way!
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
@NewEnglandRarities said:
... He is just a figure of the past, like Sheldon. Best left that way!
Only thing I would add if I may......
Rittenhouse Society still exists, inducts new members at ANA. I believe he is still currently their Awardee. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.
If this remains so, my opinion/belief is it would be in the best interests of the wider numismatic community--for a number of reasons-- that the Society at least review its award before consigning things to the history bin. Not a good look to announce new inductees at the same convention that YN events are elsewhere hosted.....
Other than that, others can draw whatever opinions they may wish from the initial award.
@JBK said:
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
In most cases that would be true, but Breen was a well known researcher and well known in the numismatic community, I am sure that word of his conviction would/was well spread across the bourse floor. Even @denga has posted that Breen's crimes and personal life were well known to him.
@denga can confirm for us if he is so inclined, but I read his comments to suggest that they were aware that he had another potentially sordid life outside of numismatics, not necessarily that they knew about his possible convictions decades earlier.
Once again, the ultimate confirmation of Breen's crimes came in the form of the circa 1990/91 convictions which were at the end of his life. I doubt he spent all that much time circulating on the bourse floor during that time frame since he was soon off to prison.
Everyone here most likely encounters convicted felons on a weekly if not daily basis. There are celebrated stars or major achievers in most fields who are felons. I'm not in any way downplaying felonious behavior and especially not those of Breen's caliber, but they are out there living otherwise productive lives. (This addresses the idea that a felony conviction should be disqualifying. It does not address someone who is engaged in felonies on an ongoing basis).
This is not a condemnation of all felons. People make mistakes and serve their time. Second chances, rehabilitation, restorative justice and personal transformation are wonderful but that does not apply here.
These were highly disturbing crimes that affected the numismatic community and were ongoing.
Success at one’s profession does not excuse sexual predation.
People are just talking past each other and some just keep beating a dead horse and distorting the issues being discussed.
We all agree that what he did was horrendous, but somehow there is still division.
It's great to be able to look back with such clarity and judge people who did not have the benefit of the whole body of evidence that we now have at our disposal. 🙄
@JBK said:
This thread should just be closed at this point.
People are just talking past each other and some just keep beating a dead horse and distorting the issues being discussed.
We all agree that what he did was horrendous, but somehow there is still division.
It's great to be able to look back with such clarity and judge people who did not have the benefit of the whole body of evidence that we now have at our disposal. 🙄
Those people now have the whole body of evidence that we do and choose to let the award stand.
@JBK said:
This thread should just be closed at this point.
People are just talking past each other and some just keep beating a dead horse and distorting the issues being discussed.
We all agree that what he did was horrendous, but somehow there is still division.
It's great to be able to look back with such clarity and judge people who did not have the benefit of the whole body of evidence that we now have at our disposal. 🙄
Those people now have the whole body of evidence that we do and choose to let the award stand.
Because the award had nothing to do with his bad behavior. And if you, thirty years later, revoke the award it didn't change the fact that you gave it to him originally. You can't erase it.
It helps nothing if "1992 Rittenhouse award winner" becomes "former 1992 Rittenhouse award winner".
@JBK said:
This thread should just be closed at this point.
People are just talking past each other and some just keep beating a dead horse and distorting the issues being discussed.
We all agree that what he did was horrendous, but somehow there is still division.
It's great to be able to look back with such clarity and judge people who did not have the benefit of the whole body of evidence that we now have at our disposal. 🙄
The issue I sought to raise was the judgment exercised by those who made the AWARD. It was not to debate whether Breen's actions were in anyway excusable. I thought that was made plain-- a couple of times.
You are focused on who knew what about Breen before his THIRD conviction. The Award was made, in print, AFTER at least some (apparently not all) who voted for it actually KNEW about his conviction, and was mailed to him --in prison. Perhaps a re-read the documents might be in order?
That required no look back. If you believe that was a good exercise of judgment, e.g. that his scholarship somehow justified the award even after conviction that is up to you. There may be division about that. I sure would like to hear a direct justification for that AWARD as I can think of none under the circumstances KNOWN at the very time it was voted on (not today).
BTW the award decision was very much calculated by some. Other documents indicated that initial overtures were made for a Lifetime ANA Award to Breen, but those efforts were abandoned in favor the the eventual 20th Century AWARD. This was due, thankfully, to push-back by certain ANA members.
Do you believe it was an exercise of good judgment by those who KNEW about his ACTUAL conviction for such heinous crimes, to vote in favor of an such an award? If so, your reasons? How do you balance the harm to Breen's victims of celebrating their victimizer, and the stigma to the the wider numismatic community of acclaiming --in PRINT-- a child predator? His scholarship was that great to outweigh all that?
@NewEnglandRarities said:
... He is just a figure of the past, like Sheldon. Best left that way!
Only thing I would add if I may......
Rittenhouse Society still exists, inducts new members at ANA. I believe he is still currently their Awardee. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.
If this remains so, my opinion/belief is it would be in the best interests of the wider numismatic community--for a number of reasons-- that the Society at least review its award before consigning things to the history bin. Not a good look to announce new inductees at the same convention that YN events are elsewhere hosted.....
Other than that, others can draw whatever opinions they may wish from the initial award.
@NewEnglandRarities said:
... He is just a figure of the past, like Sheldon. Best left that way!
Only thing I would add if I may......
Rittenhouse Society still exists, inducts new members at ANA. I believe he is still currently their Awardee. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I believe at the time the award was given (and he received many other awards for his coin work while in prison) for his numismatics additions and nothing more. You could look back and find many famous and recognized numismatists that also were part of awarding Walter and others who looking back, had some issues.
Erasing the past doesn’t solve anything. Many coins are still Breen numbers; as the grading scale is still Sheldon’s. The world is aware of his transgressions, but he does have many advanced numismatics works that are the staple of collecting even today. Breen is a name associated with numismatics ONLY when we use it. Yeah, he was a bad guy. But the hobby was made better by the bad guy at the time. I am leaving my personal feelings out of this, just representing some facts.
I agree this thread should be closed, it doesn’t really have any good direction to go. I agree with the dissenters and the negative personal decisions made by the man. But, regardless of removing his awards, prestige, etc, we can’t just erase his mark on coin collecting community as a whole; much of which was forwarding and growing the market of collectible coins. Just my two cents!
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
You keep talking about three convictions. As I understand it, there were two in close proximity to each other near the end of his life. As I understand it, the first one was decades earlier - how would anyone have known about that one?
You don't know for sure who knew what when. You are making assumptions and casting aspersions.
I have no idea what was going through anyone's mind at the time, and neither do you. But you are still using the Breen situation to smear the memory and record of others, most of whom are no longer around to defend themselves. Now that represents bad judgement.
@jmlanzaf said:
Not only is Breen dead, but most of those who may have failed to punish him are dead. > @Project Numismatics said:
Uh, at least 4, and maybe 5, of the people with names on the letter supporting Breen getting the award are still alive……….. Might not be ‘most’, but still many.
I'm not reading all these posts. I just wanted to know how the guy died. I was assuming at the hands of other convicts. They despise child molesters!.. Unfortunately, he was not! He must have been in isolation.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Comments
I think that is the salient point. Not only is Breen dead, but most of those who may have failed to punish him are dead. > @Project Numismatics said:
You do know that NAMBLA still exists. Rather than wasting your indignation on dead people, you could spend some time on an active organization.
I'm not going to continue reading this thread. BOTTOM LINE: @JCH22 I don't care what you think about Breen or his supporters!
That was an informative read. Thanks.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
What was known? That he was a convicted child molester? Or that people were uneasy with him being around children because he was a bit of a weirdo? As far as I know (and I am not an expert on Breen) it was more likely the latter.
According to Wikipedia, his earliest charges and conviction resulted in probation, and "a further molestation conviction may have occurred in 1964." So, the record was far from complete in terms of the public's awareness.
The big charges and conviction occurred in 1990, at the end of his life. Until then most people probably just knew him as that flamboyant creepy dude who gave them the willies. And while that might be a reason to stay away from him, it's not exactly legally actionable evidence. That was true then and it is especially true today.
None of this is to defend Breen. But the rush to smear others who were prominent in numismatics in the same era might not be justified.
I’m not here to discuss topics unrelated to numismatics or numismatists.
Are you aware of any numismatists alive today who have been convicted of abusing children and are still permitted to interact with YN at Summer Seminar or ANA shows?
If we can’t spend time condemning the crimes of dead numismatists then maybe we shouldn’t spend time praising the good behavior of dead numismatists either. Crimes that were pursued within numismatics forums. It cuts both ways.
This reminds me of the people in recent years who seem to have only now discovered that slavery existed in the US up until 1865. They protest with all the vigor and militancy that would have been meaningful a hundred and sixty years ago.
But they do not paint one sign or chant one slogan to address the slavery that exists now. There is more slavery in the world today - right at this moment - than in all years combined of the slavery era in the US, yet the historical events elicit the anger rather than the ongoing atrocities.
Off topic, this is a forum about coins, numismatics and numismatists.
Wrong. Please name the researchers and the errors that you claim prove that Breen did more damage than good. Walter did make errors but they were generally minor and I discussed them with him by mail or phone. It was not possible for discussions at conventions due to the crowd of collectors asking him questions, wanting an autograph, &&.
I know of no published material by qualified researchers stating that he did more harm than good.
Here you go.
No one is defending Breen’s unsavory other life. And, yes, it is clear about Sheldon though it was the ANS that was involved, not the ANA.
If we fail to remember history we will make the same mistakes.
It is not a courageous thing to say we do not approve of that behavior. The courageous thing to do would be to not support him, no matter the relationship with the perpetrator.
That is the salient point.
A dealer I knew and did business with in the 1980’s, 1990’s and early 2000’s told me that he had to watch over his young son at coin shows to make sure that Breen was never near him, including when his son was using the restroom and Breen walked into it.
Apparently Breen’s child abuse was common knowledge to many hobbyists.
Gentlemen, a couple of points.
1) I was not looking into Breen when I found what I posted.
2) I was not seeking to rehash Breen’s extreme crimes. Breen’s crimes have been discussed before. I do not believe this AWARD has been covered before.
3) I was shocked to find that he received an AWARD like that AFTER he was CONVICTED for the THIRD time.
4) I did not seek to ascribe wrongdoing to others for those crimes—e.g. crime by association. What I wrote about was the actions of some to AWARD a three-time felon, and to publicly do so. That to me is the definition of bad judgment. The issue to me is the DECISION made by those who thought it proper to bestow the AWARD.
5) I was seeking to share information that some, in my view, exercised the worst kind of judgment when they KNOWLINGLY bestowed an AWARD on Breen a little less than a year AFTER he was convicted for the THIRD time.- and one year into his 10 year sentence.
6) I was shocked and dismayed to see attempts to minizine and distract from the decision to bestow a specific AWARD as some kind of act of forgiveness. This group was forgiving Breen's crimes? That is a non sequitur, to me.
7) In your personal life, up to each to forgive a person.
8) My opinion---No professional should be in the business of acclaiming and “forgiving” monstrous repeated acts like Breen’s, months after his THIRD conviction, while he sits in jail, while the crimes and the harm to the victim is still fresh.
9) I was dumbfounded that one of the signatories appeared and tried to put my unrelated scholarship on trial to justify his own bad decision. Even if I am the worse writer to have ever published in fields separate from numismatics, his decision was his own and unrelated to me and my separate work. I saw no explanation, remorse, or retraction. Only an attack on me.
10) Rather than own such a decision, explain why it was done, or perhaps even retract it, I was attacked, and there seemed, to me, to be a double down and future attacks by others.
As to forgiveness, again, the subject is not about Breen’s crimes.
Perhaps forgiveness could be extended to those who exercised the bad judgment to bestow such AWARD on Breen after his THIRD conviction. But apparently, those involved in the AWARD ask for none, and think it justified to attack the person who merely published attachments (their own documents) related to their own decisions.
My distaste for the reaction by some was so great, my reaction was to bail out. I can see by some subsequent posts, that decision may have been premature.
Again, the issue for me was the DECISION by those involved to AWARD Breen.
So I guess the questions is :
1) Was the award appropriate, and if that is possibly so,, how?
2) Why was it never retracted?
3) What effect does bad judgment like that have on the body of work those signatories wrote. I have my opinions about that which I have already expressed. Others may disagree or have a different take.
Gentlemen, again the post was not meant to rehash Breen’s actions. Anyone is of course free to write whatever they like. My purpose to have a discussion about the AWARD.
I just read the letter in its entirety and noted the date. I guess it was written to cheer up a man dying in prison, one who had contributed much to numismatics. I can appreciate the sentiment, endorsed by numismatists who are and were well-respected and honorable people, but I think it was nonetheless misguided. I noted the sentence regarding Breen’s respect for other numismatists. During my brief encounter with him I asked him about Roger Cohen, who had recently died. His response: “good riddance to bad rubbish”.
My point in rehashing this: don’t turn a blind eye, regardless.
The question I have with the letter that @denga (who is an absolute world-class researcher and who has my deep admiration) among others signed is whether the letter was written and signed before or after Breen pled guilty to the charges he faced. If before, then I can see where the signers might have presumed "innocent until proven guilty". If after, I think the letter probably should not have been written.
There is no benefit to discussing this any more in my opinion. No agreement is going to be reached, there’s nothing for anyone to gain, and for that reason I’d like to agree to disagree.
Coin Photographer.
Breen's Third plea conviction was in 1991. The award was bestowed in 1992, and was mailed to Breen in prison.
Considering that the point of the original posting by JCH22 was a deliberate personal attack on those who signed the Rittenhouse letter I find JCH22 to be far less than honest in his response. I note that he still HIDES behind an anonymous handle. The letter was done more than 30 years ago and today no one remembers it except those choosing to make personal attacks on the signatories. (I had forgotten about it and suspect the other survivors do as well.) JCJ22 apparently considers himself the moral arbiter of our times.
Hiding behind an anonymous name and then whining about criticism is laughable.
If JCH22 expects the surviving signers to issue a retraction based on his nonsense postings he is in for a rude shock. We were well aware of what we were doing and no one, repeat no one, approved of Breen’s other world. We dealt strictly with the numismatic aspect, a point that JCH22 has difficulty understanding.
JCH22 says that my work, and that of others, is flawed because of signing the letter. I am sure that JCH22, having made this bizarre claim, will back it up with details. If he doesn’t ...
When is JCH22 going to identify himself and put his name and work up for criticism ?
.> @denga said:
The pursuit of victims appears to have occurred within the context of numismatics and that makes the discussion highly relevant. Several posters have said they personally feared for children’s safety during coin shows at the time. That fear appears justified based on the multiple criminal convictions. We should not give awards to people who are criminally harming our fellow collectors - especially YNs.
He is not the only one who has difficulty understanding.
Or I suppose I could certainly be wrong. Glenn Holsonbake lives somewhat close to me and was very well regarded by many for decades. Should I head over there to see what awards he has received recently?
[In an earlier posting by lermish;] “In a separate note, setting aside his reprehensible crimes for a moment, I don't understand how Breen could be Numismatist of the Century when he just made up a significant amount of his research. Just straight from his imagination.”
I asked earlier that you prove that a significant amount of his research was made up. There was no answer. I ask again.
.... (I had forgotten about it .....
Assuming for the sake of argument any negative inference you care to make about me, now that your memory has been refreshed, do you still believe the decision---you, not I made-- to have been a correct one?
Did your group take into consideration the effect lauding Breen might have on his victims? Or, how celebrating a then currently incarcerated and repeated perpetrator of unspeakable crimes might reflect on the broader numismatic community? Were Breen's contributions of such a great magnitude as to offset these substantial harms in your view, then, and still today?
I expect nothing from you, or anyone else, related to a decision I played no role in. Portray me as you will. Your decision was and is your very own.
In short, I am a trade dollar specialist. There are many inaccuracies in the series that were not due to lack of information (like QDB's errors; honest mistakes based on the best available research) but that were due to Breen making up numbers. To quote @FlyingAl "There is no benefit to discussing this any more in my opinion."
I don't know you but you are clearly well regarded and known in the numismatic community. Acknowledging that, I find it befuddling that you did not post on this board for three years and choose to come back to specifically to defend an award given to a convicted and actively imprisoned pedophile.
Breen was an enormous force for numismatic research, and predominantly positive (despite my and many others' misgivings about large portions of that research). That being said, I agree with JCH22 that it showed shockingly poor judgement to honor that man at that time. To continue to defend that decision is astounding.
In this day and age, one need not name themselves to stand behind their opinion. Having numismatic research to your name is respectable, but a lack of such does not render someone a nobody. That being said, I do not believe ANY amount of contribution to the hobby is enough to absolve a felon, let alone AWARD them in spite of it.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Do you run a background check on everyone you do business with? Do organizations usually do that before they bestow an award? 🤔
This was known - he was in jail.
Breen making up numbers ? Miscopied perhaps or from a bad source but I know his work well and cannot agree that he made up numbers. And even if true it is a very long ways from a significant amount of his research being made up as you claim.
A friend told me that a particular topic (on early coppers) was being discussed on this forum. I normally check every week or so but rarely find anything worth commenting on. While looking for the dollar thread I came across this posting from JCH22 which is nothing more than a personal attack on the letter signers. Why you would say that I came back specifically for this topic is baffling. Also one wonders why a three-year hiatus upsets you so much.
And I see another person who prefers making accusations anonymously. Must be catching.
Yes, at the end. But some here are suggesting that he should have been officially shunned long before then despite his legal history not necessarily being widely public knowledge.
Furthermore, the poster I was responding to did not make current incarceration part of his declaration - the felony conviction was the disqualifying condition, and it most cases that would never be known absent a background check.
Posted by accident.
In most cases that would be true, but Breen was a well known researcher and well known in the numismatic community, I am sure that word of his conviction would/was well spread across the bourse floor. Even @denga has posted that Breen's crimes and personal life were well known to him.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
A friend told me that a particular topic (on early coppers) was being discussed on this forum. I normally check every week or so but rarely find anything worth commenting on. While looking for the dollar thread I came across this posting from JCH22 which is nothing more than a personal attack on the letter signers. Why you would say that I came back specifically for this topic is baffling. It seems odd that you have been a member for many years and visit weekly but this is the first topic to elicit a response in three years
Also one wonders why a three-year hiatus upsets you so much. I said I was befuddled. What about befuddlement even slightly implies being upset?
And I see another person who prefers making accusations anonymously. Must be catching. I'm not anonymous, many members of this board know me in person and/or would vouch for me. Things have changed since letters to incarcerated pedophiles were typewritten and delivered by mail. And what accusations am I making? I stated that I believe you did and CONTINUE to show awful judgement in this matter. That's my opinion, not an accusation.*
I understand people can become increasingly recalcitrant with age, it's happening to me, but this is beyond the pale. So many strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks. I'm done with this thread.
@denga can confirm for us if he is so inclined, but I read his comments to suggest that they were aware that he had another potentially sordid life outside of numismatics, not necessarily that they knew about his possible convictions decades earlier.
Once again, the ultimate confirmation of Breen's crimes came in the form of the circa 1990/91 convictions which were at the end of his life. I doubt he spent all that much time circulating on the bourse floor during that time frame since he was soon off to prison.
Everyone here most likely encounters convicted felons on a weekly if not daily basis. There are celebrated stars or major achievers in most fields who are felons. I'm not in any way downplaying felonious behavior and especially not those of Breen's caliber, but they are out there living otherwise productive lives. (This addresses the idea that a felony conviction should be disqualifying. It does not address someone who is engaged in felonies on an ongoing basis).
x> @lermish said:
If you actually checked you would find that I often do not post for months or years at a time. 900 or so posts in more than 20 years is not exactly an overwhelming number.
I said I was befuddled. What about befuddlement even slightly implies being upset?
Oh I see. In simply reporting what happened 30+ years I ago I continue to show bad judgement.
So you are not posting your name for all to know because letters to pedophiles were delivered by mail ?
I cannot speak for the others but I did not know of the earlier convictions. I did not know, also, that there was a daughter.
Thanks for the confirmation. I believe you, and your answer was what I expected. It helps put things into perspective.
Just thought I'd weigh in before this thread inevitably gets locked.
I met and talked to Walter Breen at shows in the distant past but didn't know him enough to even call him an acquaintance. I have great respect for his body of numismatic work and knowledge but consider him to have been a deeply disturbed and reprehensible human being outside of the numismatic world.
All of that said, he's been dead 30 years; he served time in this world and if you are inclined to believe in such things, will certainly face consequences in the next...and threads like this dredging up the past for no real purpose really do nothing to further this hobby.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Maybe I’ll add something here that can help. When talking about Breen research and facts “hurting” the hobby, while I think certain things were innocent, his “fill ins” on colonial era coinage that have been proved wrong took 20 years to untangle because of the “prestigious” name attached to the research. Nobody necessarily in the 90s wanted to be the dissenter of the “Man”.
With that said we know now that much of his “facts” and research on colonials was completely wrong, in some cases VERY wrong. Seemingly to create happiness for certain “higher” numismatists coins than others.
But, that was at a time where things were different. No internet, no Newman portal. Etc. Newman himself was written about as the “Truth Seeker” though had also “skewed” some things towards his own personal holdings, I guess who doesn’t who takes the time to write and further numismatic study.
I think we all agree Walter was a tough person to stand up for at this point. Matter fact, when I was 8 years old, it took two dealers and my father (a very prominent collector) to get me away from him on his lap at a show in NJ.
I think the idea back then was to say his numismatic accomplishments (which are many) should be recognized. In today’s world everything is looked at with a fine toothed comb. Back then, ignoring outside issues for the benefit of education (which he was doing) was the way and easier:
There are never going to be agreements over Walter. He is just a figure of the past, like Sheldon. Best left that way!
Only thing I would add if I may......
Rittenhouse Society still exists, inducts new members at ANA. I believe he is still currently their Awardee. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.
If this remains so, my opinion/belief is it would be in the best interests of the wider numismatic community--for a number of reasons-- that the Society at least review its award before consigning things to the history bin. Not a good look to announce new inductees at the same convention that YN events are elsewhere hosted.....
Other than that, others can draw whatever opinions they may wish from the initial award.
Every hobby has its rogues. Brilliance and talents often comes with some baggage.
This is not a condemnation of all felons. People make mistakes and serve their time. Second chances, rehabilitation, restorative justice and personal transformation are wonderful but that does not apply here.
These were highly disturbing crimes that affected the numismatic community and were ongoing.
Success at one’s profession does not excuse sexual predation.
This thread should just be closed at this point.
People are just talking past each other and some just keep beating a dead horse and distorting the issues being discussed.
We all agree that what he did was horrendous, but somehow there is still division.
It's great to be able to look back with such clarity and judge people who did not have the benefit of the whole body of evidence that we now have at our disposal. 🙄
Those people now have the whole body of evidence that we do and choose to let the award stand.
I’m with @JBK
Please, Moderator - kindly close this non-coin discussion.
Thank you.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
.> @Project Numismatics said:
Because the award had nothing to do with his bad behavior. And if you, thirty years later, revoke the award it didn't change the fact that you gave it to him originally. You can't erase it.
It helps nothing if "1992 Rittenhouse award winner" becomes "former 1992 Rittenhouse award winner".
The issue I sought to raise was the judgment exercised by those who made the AWARD. It was not to debate whether Breen's actions were in anyway excusable. I thought that was made plain-- a couple of times.
You are focused on who knew what about Breen before his THIRD conviction. The Award was made, in print, AFTER at least some (apparently not all) who voted for it actually KNEW about his conviction, and was mailed to him --in prison. Perhaps a re-read the documents might be in order?
That required no look back. If you believe that was a good exercise of judgment, e.g. that his scholarship somehow justified the award even after conviction that is up to you. There may be division about that. I sure would like to hear a direct justification for that AWARD as I can think of none under the circumstances KNOWN at the very time it was voted on (not today).
BTW the award decision was very much calculated by some. Other documents indicated that initial overtures were made for a Lifetime ANA Award to Breen, but those efforts were abandoned in favor the the eventual 20th Century AWARD. This was due, thankfully, to push-back by certain ANA members.
Do you believe it was an exercise of good judgment by those who KNEW about his ACTUAL conviction for such heinous crimes, to vote in favor of an such an award? If so, your reasons? How do you balance the harm to Breen's victims of celebrating their victimizer, and the stigma to the the wider numismatic community of acclaiming --in PRINT-- a child predator? His scholarship was that great to outweigh all that?
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I believe at the time the award was given (and he received many other awards for his coin work while in prison) for his numismatics additions and nothing more. You could look back and find many famous and recognized numismatists that also were part of awarding Walter and others who looking back, had some issues.
Erasing the past doesn’t solve anything. Many coins are still Breen numbers; as the grading scale is still Sheldon’s. The world is aware of his transgressions, but he does have many advanced numismatics works that are the staple of collecting even today. Breen is a name associated with numismatics ONLY when we use it. Yeah, he was a bad guy. But the hobby was made better by the bad guy at the time. I am leaving my personal feelings out of this, just representing some facts.
I agree this thread should be closed, it doesn’t really have any good direction to go. I agree with the dissenters and the negative personal decisions made by the man. But, regardless of removing his awards, prestige, etc, we can’t just erase his mark on coin collecting community as a whole; much of which was forwarding and growing the market of collectible coins. Just my two cents!
Closure would be fine. Think community had the right to know fuller facts. It has them now.
You keep talking about three convictions. As I understand it, there were two in close proximity to each other near the end of his life. As I understand it, the first one was decades earlier - how would anyone have known about that one?
You don't know for sure who knew what when. You are making assumptions and casting aspersions.
I have no idea what was going through anyone's mind at the time, and neither do you. But you are still using the Breen situation to smear the memory and record of others, most of whom are no longer around to defend themselves. Now that represents bad judgement.
Uh, at least 4, and maybe 5, of the people with names on the letter supporting Breen getting the award are still alive……….. Might not be ‘most’, but still many.
I'm not reading all these posts. I just wanted to know how the guy died. I was assuming at the hands of other convicts. They despise child molesters!.. Unfortunately, he was not! He must have been in isolation.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )