Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
@oldabeintx said:
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@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".
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@JCH22 said:
Closure would be fine. Think community had the right to know fuller facts. It has them now.
Well one of the facts is obvious. Your entire presentation was simply a crude way of making personal attacks against those who signed the letter and then HIDE behind an anonymous handle.
@oldabeintx said:
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@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".
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
How? He's still the awardee. I doubt the victims know or care about the reward. Dredging it up to revoke it is more likely to reopen wounds than create closure.
@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.
Maywood, I am surprised you don't see the distinction between stealing a boy's lunch money and stealing his youth and innocence.
@oldabeintx said:
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@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".
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
His personal past miraculously alluded me until this thread, thankfully before my time. Now I wish I never knew.
@denga said:
Well one of the facts is obvious. Your entire presentation was simply a crude way of making personal attacks against those who signed the letter and then HIDE behind an anonymous handle.
When a group of esteemed individuals show such a disgraceful lapse in judgement with one of their own (way beyond issuing the award in '92), it naturally opens the door for incredible skepticism of both their work and personal integrity. It should, how could people in this community let that behavior slide, what else is getting swept under the table.
@oldabeintx said:
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@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".
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
If they took 7 Tour de France’s from Lance Armstrong for minor doping, they can retract a numismatic award for heinous crimes committed against children that the awarding committee were fully cognizant of at the time they gave the award…………….
Whaaat? That's absolutely apples and oranges. The doping was presumably directly responsible for Armstrong's victories. Breen's crimes had nothing to do with his achievements in numismatics.
The relevant organizations might well decide at some point to rescind the awards. There is some precedent for that in other fields.
@oldabeintx said:
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@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".
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
If they took 7 Tour de France’s from Lance Armstrong for minor doping, they can retract a numismatic award for heinous crimes committed against children that the awarding committee were fully cognizant of at the time they gave the award…………….
Whaaat? That's absolutely apples and oranges. The doping was presumably directly responsible for Armstrong's victories. Breen's crimes had nothing to do with his achievements in numismatics.
The relevant organizations might well decide at some point to rescind the awards. There is some precedent for that in other fields.
Please don’t misattribute quotes between posters. I never made a comparison to Lance.
@oldabeintx said:
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
@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".
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
If they took 7 Tour de France’s from Lance Armstrong for minor doping, they can retract a numismatic award for heinous crimes committed against children that the awarding committee were fully cognizant of at the time they gave the award…………….
Whaaat? That's absolutely apples and oranges. The doping was presumably directly responsible for Armstrong's victories. Breen's crimes had nothing to do with his achievements in numismatics.
The relevant organizations might well decide at some point to rescind the awards. There is some precedent for that in other fields.
Please don’t misattribute quotes between posters. I never made a comparison to Lance.
No, Desert Moon did, by quoting your post and adding his comments underneath it. I quoted his post using the "quote" function and then he subsequently edited his comments. The way the quote function works it includes all earlier posts that were quoted in that string.
No, Desert Moon did, by quoting your post and adding his comments underneath it. I quoted his post using the "quote" function and then he subsequently edited his comments. The way the quote function works it includes all earlier posts that were quoted in that string.
And the same time you posted, I already said, nevermind……….
denga
I have great respect for your research over the years.
A couple of points however.
1. One researcher who has heavily criticized Breen is Roger Burdette. If you search RWB’s posts here on Breen, they are pretty harsh. I myself use Breen’s encyclopedia all the time but recognize that he filled in some blanks with gossip and speculation, much of which is fun to read.
2. Lermish is well known by many here. Criticizing him on a coin forum for not publishing his name to the world is a bit shortsighted. Coin thefts are too common and lermish has a nice collection and doesn’t need to publicize his name to all.
3. There are many people on that list I respect in numismatics. This thread hasn’t changed that.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@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.
It would seem, on the surface, that the folks back then were more concerned with coins than character.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@breakdown said:
denga
I have great respect for your research over the years.
A couple of points however.
1. One researcher who has heavily criticized Breen is Roger Burdette. If you search RWB’s posts here on Breen, they are pretty harsh. I myself use Breen’s encyclopedia all the time but recognize that he filled in some blanks with gossip and speculation, much of which is fun to read.
2. Lermish is well known by many here. Criticizing him on a coin forum for not publishing his name to the world is a bit shortsighted. Coin thefts are too common and lermish has a nice collection and doesn’t need to publicize his name to all.
3. There are many people on that list I respect in numismatics. This thread hasn’t changed that.
You are quite right on the first point. Roger B is a well-qualified researcher who is, I think, unfairly banned from this site. He and I happen to disagree about Breen but his views are honest and well thought out, unlike those of JCH22.
Lermish is another matter. He makes personal attacks, and then HIDES behind an anonymous handle.
@breakdown said:
denga
I have great respect for your research over the years.
A couple of points however.
1. One researcher who has heavily criticized Breen is Roger Burdette. If you search RWB’s posts here on Breen, they are pretty harsh. I myself use Breen’s encyclopedia all the time but recognize that he filled in some blanks with gossip and speculation, much of which is fun to read.
2. Lermish is well known by many here. Criticizing him on a coin forum for not publishing his name to the world is a bit shortsighted. Coin thefts are too common and lermish has a nice collection and doesn’t need to publicize his name to all.
3. There are many people on that list I respect in numismatics. This thread hasn’t changed that.
You are quite right on the first point. Roger B is a well-qualified researcher who is, I think, unfairly banned from this site. He and I happen to disagree about Breen but his views are honest and well thought out, unlike those of JCH22.
Lermish is another matter. He makes personal attacks, and then HIDES behind an anonymous handle.
That is absolutely non-sensical (just like your continued defense of presenting an award to an incarcerated pedophile).
Except for just a couple of people, EVERYONE uses a handle, including you. There are many people on this board who know exactly who I am and have met in person. There are even more people here who have transacted business with me and have my full name and physical address.
Of what benefit is posting my name in a publicly searchable forum for someone who doesn't know me? To satisfy an old crank who is incapable of admitting that maybe presenting a prestigious award to a man who sexually abused children wasn't a good decision?
It would seem, on the surface, that the folks back then were more concerned with coins than character.
Or:
"Several years later, Stanley Apfelbaum, self-described father of telemarketing, bought Breen and began advertising him to the hilt, flying out with his lawyers to tell Oliver how it was going to be: "I own this man and I'm spending unlimited money on ads publicizing him. If he doesn't appear in our Coin World ads, I'm going to sue you into infinity!!!" Breen now saturated Coin World in First Coinvestors ads!"
Very strong feelings posted here. My comment is folks should never confuse co-workers with friends. I've worked over 30 years with some folks, they are super bright and someone I go to for help to solve issues or seek advice, but they will never be my friend, rude, crude, demeaning, etc. I can also separate my feeling towards someone like Michael Jackson with his music and showmanship and his personal demons. Was one of the greatest performers in the 80's. Does his abomination behavior negate that fact. I have no comment on Breen's contribution to numismatic research as I have not read any of his works.
Some people need to pull their halos up from around their ankles. And this entity (PCGS) cannot or will not abide by their own rules. Shame on us all for that.
It would seem, on the surface, that the folks back then were more concerned with coins than character.
Or:
"Several years later, Stanley Apfelbaum, self-described father of telemarketing, bought Breen and began advertising him to the hilt, flying out with his lawyers to tell Oliver how it was going to be: "I own this man and I'm spending unlimited money on ads publicizing him. If he doesn't appear in our Coin World ads, I'm going to sue you into infinity!!!" Breen now saturated Coin World in First Coinvestors ads!"
I can confirm Dave Alexander's account here of how and why Breen had been banned from the pages of CW, and how and why he rose from the dead to appear in FCI advertising, but because the ban had been SOLELY because Breen had slipped an obscenity into a column the threatened lawsuit would have been indefensible.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@lermish said:
Except for just a couple of people, EVERYONE uses a handle, including you. There are many people on this board who know exactly who I am and have met in person. There are even more people here who have transacted business with me and have my full name and physical address.
Of what benefit is posting my name in a publicly searchable forum for someone who doesn't know me? To satisfy an old crank who is incapable of admitting that maybe presenting a prestigious award to a man who sexually abused children wasn't a good decision?
About as expected. Lermish makes fresh personal attacks and then HIDES behind an anonymous handle.
Most everything discussed negatively about Breen is a matter of record and the letter referenced, there is no defamation.
Clearly topical as a numismatic scholar, maybe the numismatic profession should continue to strive and attain a higher moral standard and accountability.
@CaptHenway
I can confirm Dave Alexander's account here of how and why Breen had been banned from the pages of CW, and how and why he rose from the dead to appear in FCI advertising, but because the ban had been SOLELY because Breen had slipped an obscenity into a column the threatened lawsuit would have been indefensible.
>
Appreciate the context.
My own separate thought and why I posted----Was interesting to see how marketing played a role in his rise. Odd selection for a Ronald McDonald type mascot, but I supposes he was marketable as a colorful clown like eccentric figure.
It would seem, on the surface, that the folks back then were more concerned with coins than character.
Or:
"Several years later, Stanley Apfelbaum, self-described father of telemarketing, bought Breen and began advertising him to the hilt, flying out with his lawyers to tell Oliver how it was going to be: "I own this man and I'm spending unlimited money on ads publicizing him. If he doesn't appear in our Coin World ads, I'm going to sue you into infinity!!!" Breen now saturated Coin World in First Coinvestors ads!"
I can confirm Dave Alexander's account here of how and why Breen had been banned from the pages of CW, and how and why he rose from the dead to appear in FCI advertising, but because the ban had been SOLELY because Breen had slipped an obscenity into a column the threatened lawsuit would have been indefensible.
Wow... leave it to a teenager to sum Breen up. That is classic.
As a juror, once sat on a probation style hearing for a pedo. He had finagled himself into a psychology ward as a way to get out of his sentence.
He could have gotten out sooner if he stayed in prison. Thus he went back into the system for a few more years.
After the sentence was read and in the back room the juror reactions ranged from ambivalent to tears.
Fact is we cared more for the unrepentant pedo than he ever cared about his victim.
Gave him an honest hearing but 4 more years and the gravity of the testimony weighed heavy on some.
To me it was an interesting social experience but I went on with my day.
I see the tearful juror every so often, and twenty years later it always comes up. Is that creep still in in a psyc ward?
The letter is a snapshot in time, in hindsight hasn't aged well.
Nothing more... social, professional, and personal opinions will always differ.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
The letter is a snapshot in time, not an indictment.
Nothing more... social, professional, and personal opinions will always differ.
Now that's one of the best observations I've seen on this thread.
Personally, I'd be very interested in an examination of the culture and feelings of the numismatic community during that era - a scholarly research project, not a witch hunt or judgemental crusade.
One of the participants in that recognition letter was even available in this thread, but he was immediately put on the defensive through accusations and condemnation. Any chance to have a constructive and informative engagement was lost.
Good and intelligent people were involved in that award. What was their thought process? How did they reconcile what they might have known at the time? Much more research is in order.
But that sort of research takes a lot of work, and passing judgement instead is much easier.
The letter is a snapshot in time, not an indictment.
Nothing more... social, professional, and personal opinions will always differ.
Now that's one of the best observations I've seen on this thread.
Personally, I'd be very interested in an examination of the culture and feelings of the numismatic community during that era - a scholarly research project, not a witch hunt or judgemental crusade.
One of the participants in that recognition letter was even available in this thread, but he was immediately put on the defensive through accusations and condemnation. Any chance to have a constructive and informative engagement was lost.
Good and intelligent people were involved in that award. What was their thought process? How did they reconcile what they might have known at the time? Much more research is in order.
But that sort of research takes a lot of work, and passing judgement instead is much easier.
I think that, after 30 years, memories will be less than perfect. I do not remember who wrote the letter but think Eric would be a good candidate. It was passed out at the meeting, discussed, and then signed by those present. It is and was common practice at Rittenhouse Society meetings to pass such statements or resolutions. They were not brought up again in future meetings as there were always new matters to consider and vote on.
Walter was, as mentioned earlier, dropped from the ANA. He was in the process of being removed as an ANS member but this was due to non-payment of dues, not the legal problems. I heard later that several ANS members had covered his dues payments but this had nothing to do with the Rittenhouse Society.
Personally, I'd be very interested in an examination of the culture and feelings of the numismatic community during that era - a scholarly research project, not a witch hunt or judgemental crusade.
Maybe a starting point for your research on then existing culture and feeling:
Personally, I'd be very interested in an examination of the culture and feelings of the numismatic community during that era - a scholarly research project, not a witch hunt or judgemental crusade.
Maybe a starting point for your research on then existing culture and feeling:
Another piece of the puzzle, and another historical snapshot. But It does not provide any insight into how they viewed or reconciled his crime. Surely you are not implying that they supported his behavior.
Why not approach the surviving members of the award process? The ones who haven't already been alienated, I mean.
I do note that in one of the original letters you posted the sender was asking Breen for advice or opinions on a coin, so they obviously still viewed him as a critical resource of information, despite his incarceration. Did they completely separate his numismatic knowledge from his "other life"? Did they think he was the devil but feined respect in order to mine his legendary body of knowledge?
There is an odd (to us) incongruity to the whole situation that merits more research, and sooner rather than later so that the surviving participants can give firsthand accounts.
Interesting thread for sure...I have learned much from it.
It's taught me how little I know about the hobby that I have chosen to take up most of my pastime. I knew nothing of Walter Breen other than what dealers or shop owners may have quoted to me when referencing a Breen number. I knew little about his Numismatic accomplishments and nothing of his personal life. It's amazing that I could have collected coins for a decade in the 80's and 90's and then after a long break for the last 8 years and know so little about this man.
As far as the award goes it may have been initiated by some of his closest colleagues to maybe cheer him up in a bad situation after he was imprisoned for his crimes. I think they were trying to respect his Numismatic accomplishments and set aside his personal wrongdoings. Was this right or is this wrong to give someone like Breen an award? At the time it may have felt right, but today people may feel differently. That is hard to say without having been there at the time and knowing all the facts. Just like me, some people may not have had all the facts.
Wow. Can't believe this thread is still alive when it's clearly a violation of Rule #2.
Facts don't care about feelings.
He was a pedo. Fact.
He's dead. Fact.
The hobby itself has moved on without him. Fact.
Some people gave him an award 30 years ago. Fact.
The controversy surrounding Walter Breen’s designation as "Scholar of the 20th Century" speaks to a broader question: Can a person’s moral failings coexist with recognition of their achievements in a specific field? This is not a defense of Breen’s actions as a felon, which are reprehensible, but rather a discussion about the separation of contributions to a field from personal morality.
History is replete with individuals whose achievements have profoundly shaped their disciplines, despite their personal failings. Consider Richard Wagner, a composer whose music is revered but whose personal views, particularly his antisemitism, remain deeply problematic. Or Thomas Jefferson, who contributed immeasurably to the founding of the United States while being a slave owner. Similarly, Breen’s unparalleled scholarship and contributions to numismatics—cataloging coins, analyzing their history, and shaping the field’s academic rigor—represent achievements that stand apart from his criminal actions.
Recognizing Breen as a scholar does not equate to excusing or ignoring his crimes. It acknowledges that, within the realm of numismatics, his work was extraordinary. If we were to reject all historical recognition for individuals with moral failings, we would risk erasing vast swaths of human achievement. The key is to contextualize such honors: to celebrate the contributions without condoning the conduct.
A fitting analogy might be the Nobel Prize, awarded for specific achievements regardless of the recipient’s broader life. Fritz Haber, for instance, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of the Haber-Bosch process, which revolutionized agriculture and saved billions from starvation. Yet Haber was also instrumental in developing chemical weapons used in World War I. His recognition reflects his scientific contributions, not an endorsement of his moral choices.
Similarly, in Breen’s case, the honor of being named "Coin Scholar of the 20th Century" should be understood narrowly: it celebrates his contributions to numismatics, not his character. To acknowledge this distinction is not to condone, but to recognize the complexity of human achievement.
Ultimately, society benefits from a balanced approach—learning from the contributions of flawed individuals while condemning and holding them accountable for their moral failings. This nuanced perspective allows us to preserve the integrity of disciplines like numismatics without erasing uncomfortable truths about the past.
@Alltheabove76 said:
The controversy surrounding Walter Breen’s designation as "Scholar of the 20th Century" speaks to a broader question: Can a person’s moral failings coexist with recognition of their achievements in a specific field? This is not a defense of Breen’s actions as a felon, which are reprehensible, but rather a discussion about the separation of contributions to a field from personal morality.
History is replete with individuals whose achievements have profoundly shaped their disciplines, despite their personal failings. Consider Richard Wagner, a composer whose music is revered but whose personal views, particularly his antisemitism, remain deeply problematic. Or Thomas Jefferson, who contributed immeasurably to the founding of the United States while being a slave owner. Similarly, Breen’s unparalleled scholarship and contributions to numismatics—cataloging coins, analyzing their history, and shaping the field’s academic rigor—represent achievements that stand apart from his criminal actions.
Recognizing Breen as a scholar does not equate to excusing or ignoring his crimes. It acknowledges that, within the realm of numismatics, his work was extraordinary. If we were to reject all historical recognition for individuals with moral failings, we would risk erasing vast swaths of human achievement. The key is to contextualize such honors: to celebrate the contributions without condoning the conduct.
A fitting analogy might be the Nobel Prize, awarded for specific achievements regardless of the recipient’s broader life. Fritz Haber, for instance, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of the Haber-Bosch process, which revolutionized agriculture and saved billions from starvation. Yet Haber was also instrumental in developing chemical weapons used in World War I. His recognition reflects his scientific contributions, not an endorsement of his moral choices.
Similarly, in Breen’s case, the honor of being named "Coin Scholar of the 20th Century" should be understood narrowly: it celebrates his contributions to numismatics, not his character. To acknowledge this distinction is not to condone, but to recognize the complexity of human achievement.
Ultimately, society benefits from a balanced approach—learning from the contributions of flawed individuals while condemning and holding them accountable for their moral failings. This nuanced perspective allows us to preserve the integrity of disciplines like numismatics without erasing uncomfortable truths about the past.
But I can’t separate the fact that Breen apparently preyed on YNs at shows. To the extent that parents and some ANA members were worried enough to take special precautions. The moral failings are inextricably linked to the hobby.
Sheldon presents the same problem - alleged theft of some of the very coins he was researching. Granted, the consequences of theft are far less. Stolen objects can be returned.
Haber and Jefferson’s contributions were far greater and their sins were not illegal at the time.
Why not approach the surviving members of the award process? The ones who haven't already been alienated, I mean.
Would be my honor to conduct interviews, but not with who you suggest.
Rather, I believe the story of the unnamed, and unknown persons at the ANA who had the moral fortitude to resist a very powerful faction within, should be told—and celebrated. See below. They stood tall, and saved the ANA, and the numismatic community from perhaps an extinction level bad decision. Don't think it would have survived long as an organization that reclassified and recognized pedophilia as just an illness.
I note many have taken exception to this thread as a rehash or a rewrite of history. I do not see it that way. Adding unknown facts is not rewriting. Breen was not some lone wolf/rogue figure in the community. The issue goes beyond his scholarship. That story was never told.
The more I unravel the Breen onion, the more difficult it becomes to explain everything away as simply friendship.
Since we are acknowledging….
Here are the acknowledgements from the inside cover of Breen’s Encylclopedia. You guys want to have a book burning event ?
Don’t forget to burn your Red books.
Everyone, this is why this topic really is going to get nowhere. Look, Breen was a numismatic giant at a time where CNN/FOX/etc were not around haha!
Many people did not know the extent of his crimes in the early 90s. Many people on the list of great numismatists have some issues in their personal lives. Without saying too much, there are a couple current people being “looked at” for similar reasons with youth. Every hobby has good people and bad people.
The truth is, while we all feel something negative about past crimes, this is a well known situation and while controversy abounds, it’s better to move on. 1992 was what it was, not the same at all as 2024. I agree that we can literally fire to the stake with anyone back then, but for the better of the hobby and the business; let’s focus on what we all love, the hobby of collecting coins. That apparently was what was done in 1992, we should keep the same today. It’s in the past, hey, Walter had a Wikipedia page which details much of his transgressions. We only focus on numismatics here.
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
This thread is certainly about numismatics and numismatists. Why does it need to be closed? It should stand on its own, unmoderated. I'm glad to see PCGS let it run its course.
It's ok to have discussions and opinions. That is what makes forums interesting.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
It's a complicated subject, and I am torn to give me opinion especially in the prism of the present.
Those gentlemen awarded a brilliant mind and award, and they chose to look past some heinous crimes.
I loathe pedophiles.
I happen to admire the enthusiasm and scope of Breen's work.
One can be appreciated without hatred of the other, and without a public award
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
In reading this thread and the numerous posts to it the following thought comes to my mind:
The conduct Breen engaged in and for which he was charged and convicted is such (in the past, today and in the future) that some persons have been, are and will be horrified and repulsed by it; some persons have been, are and will be ambivalent about it; and some persons have been, are and will advocate for it, celebrate it and give kudos to society becoming more tolerant, progressive and inclusive of alternative lifestyles (including those that are immoral and/or illegal).
I have considered purchasing a book or two authored by Breen but I simply cannot bring myself to do so.
I believe it is human nature to forgive/forget someone's egregious transgressions from afar. At least until those very things affect your inner circle, family members etc.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@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 only suggest that the members that signed the letter were aware of the conviction (singular), I did not suggest that anyone was aware of the previous convictions. However, if you read what denga wrote he does say that everyone that signed the letter was "fully aware of his other life"; that suggests possibly knowing more about Breen than just the one conviction.
I am not condemning those that signed the letter, I do not feel that I would have been or would be comfortable signing such a letter myself if I was aware of someone's other life. When bestowing an award to an individual I feel the whole person should be considered not just one part of the person. Take Pete Rose as an example, there are many who feel that his achievements on the field should be recognized despite his transgressions. But I think the decision to uphold the hall of fame ban is the correct decision and sets the "right" example for those that follow and play the game. Just as in this case I do not think that giving Breen this award was the correct thing to do, but I can understand the reasoning behind the action.
As many have said there is no upside to rescinding the award, erasing history is not a valuable action. But a healthy discussion of this event and the reasons and motivations behind it are productive and could be helpful for future similar situations; maybe.
Comments
Threads like this do serve one purpose, they give us a strong sense of which members we may want to have beer with one day and which members we may avoid.
I hope we don’t let disagreements prevent us from engaging with other numismatists. I’ll gladly have a beer and chat with folks that have opposing views.
It may help the dads who had to worry about protecting their kids at shows or the ANA members who raised concerns and were dismissed by their peers or the kids who were victims.
Beating the old dead horse again.
Agree, up to a point.
Well one of the facts is obvious. Your entire presentation was simply a crude way of making personal attacks against those who signed the letter and then HIDE behind an anonymous handle.
How? He's still the awardee. I doubt the victims know or care about the reward. Dredging it up to revoke it is more likely to reopen wounds than create closure.
Maywood, I am surprised you don't see the distinction between stealing a boy's lunch money and stealing his youth and innocence.
Rebirth. Renewal. Transformation.
Werhner Von Braun
Robert Stroud
One killed a prison guard and one was a Nazi who used Jewish slave labor.
Both made credible contributions to the world after the fact.
Will you stop using Twitter because Elon Musk admires von Braun and his rocket science?
Silliness
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
"> @Project Numismatics said:
Nevermind……...
This Breen guy was a real jerk!
His personal past miraculously alluded me until this thread, thankfully before my time. Now I wish I never knew.
When a group of esteemed individuals show such a disgraceful lapse in judgement with one of their own (way beyond issuing the award in '92), it naturally opens the door for incredible skepticism of both their work and personal integrity. It should, how could people in this community let that behavior slide, what else is getting swept under the table.
Hopefully times have changed.
I don’t hear anyone saying we should not read Breen’s work (though there are serious questions about the quality and integrity of some of the work).
Reading someone’s writings does not mean that one agrees with the work or the author. Bestowing an award on the person is another matter.
.
Whaaat? That's absolutely apples and oranges. The doping was presumably directly responsible for Armstrong's victories. Breen's crimes had nothing to do with his achievements in numismatics.
The relevant organizations might well decide at some point to rescind the awards. There is some precedent for that in other fields.
Please don’t misattribute quotes between posters. I never made a comparison to Lance.
.> @JBK said:
Like I said, nevermind…………….
No, Desert Moon did, by quoting your post and adding his comments underneath it. I quoted his post using the "quote" function and then he subsequently edited his comments. The way the quote function works it includes all earlier posts that were quoted in that string.
And the same time you posted, I already said, nevermind……….
denga
I have great respect for your research over the years.
A couple of points however.
1. One researcher who has heavily criticized Breen is Roger Burdette. If you search RWB’s posts here on Breen, they are pretty harsh. I myself use Breen’s encyclopedia all the time but recognize that he filled in some blanks with gossip and speculation, much of which is fun to read.
2. Lermish is well known by many here. Criticizing him on a coin forum for not publishing his name to the world is a bit shortsighted. Coin thefts are too common and lermish has a nice collection and doesn’t need to publicize his name to all.
3. There are many people on that list I respect in numismatics. This thread hasn’t changed that.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
It would seem, on the surface, that the folks back then were more concerned with coins than character.
Those photos of Breen evoke thoughts of a numismatic guru, of sorts.
You are quite right on the first point. Roger B is a well-qualified researcher who is, I think, unfairly banned from this site. He and I happen to disagree about Breen but his views are honest and well thought out, unlike those of JCH22.
Lermish is another matter. He makes personal attacks, and then HIDES behind an anonymous handle.
That is absolutely non-sensical (just like your continued defense of presenting an award to an incarcerated pedophile).
Except for just a couple of people, EVERYONE uses a handle, including you. There are many people on this board who know exactly who I am and have met in person. There are even more people here who have transacted business with me and have my full name and physical address.
Of what benefit is posting my name in a publicly searchable forum for someone who doesn't know me? To satisfy an old crank who is incapable of admitting that maybe presenting a prestigious award to a man who sexually abused children wasn't a good decision?
Or:
"Several years later, Stanley Apfelbaum, self-described father of telemarketing, bought Breen and began advertising him to the hilt, flying out with his lawyers to tell Oliver how it was going to be: "I own this man and I'm spending unlimited money on ads publicizing him. If he doesn't appear in our Coin World ads, I'm going to sue you into infinity!!!" Breen now saturated Coin World in First Coinvestors ads!"
https://www.coinbooks.org/v21/esylum_v21n30a09.html
Very strong feelings posted here. My comment is folks should never confuse co-workers with friends. I've worked over 30 years with some folks, they are super bright and someone I go to for help to solve issues or seek advice, but they will never be my friend, rude, crude, demeaning, etc. I can also separate my feeling towards someone like Michael Jackson with his music and showmanship and his personal demons. Was one of the greatest performers in the 80's. Does his abomination behavior negate that fact. I have no comment on Breen's contribution to numismatic research as I have not read any of his works.
Some people need to pull their halos up from around their ankles. And this entity (PCGS) cannot or will not abide by their own rules. Shame on us all for that.
I can confirm Dave Alexander's account here of how and why Breen had been banned from the pages of CW, and how and why he rose from the dead to appear in FCI advertising, but because the ban had been SOLELY because Breen had slipped an obscenity into a column the threatened lawsuit would have been indefensible.
About as expected. Lermish makes fresh personal attacks and then HIDES behind an anonymous handle.
Most everything discussed negatively about Breen is a matter of record and the letter referenced, there is no defamation.
Clearly topical as a numismatic scholar, maybe the numismatic profession should continue to strive and attain a higher moral standard and accountability.
>
Appreciate the context.
My own separate thought and why I posted----Was interesting to see how marketing played a role in his rise. Odd selection for a Ronald McDonald type mascot, but I supposes he was marketable as a colorful clown like eccentric figure.
Wow... leave it to a teenager to sum Breen up. That is classic.
As a juror, once sat on a probation style hearing for a pedo. He had finagled himself into a psychology ward as a way to get out of his sentence.
He could have gotten out sooner if he stayed in prison. Thus he went back into the system for a few more years.
After the sentence was read and in the back room the juror reactions ranged from ambivalent to tears.
Fact is we cared more for the unrepentant pedo than he ever cared about his victim.
Gave him an honest hearing but 4 more years and the gravity of the testimony weighed heavy on some.
To me it was an interesting social experience but I went on with my day.
I see the tearful juror every so often, and twenty years later it always comes up. Is that creep still in in a psyc ward?
The letter is a snapshot in time, in hindsight hasn't aged well.
Nothing more... social, professional, and personal opinions will always differ.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Now that's one of the best observations I've seen on this thread.
Personally, I'd be very interested in an examination of the culture and feelings of the numismatic community during that era - a scholarly research project, not a witch hunt or judgemental crusade.
One of the participants in that recognition letter was even available in this thread, but he was immediately put on the defensive through accusations and condemnation. Any chance to have a constructive and informative engagement was lost.
Good and intelligent people were involved in that award. What was their thought process? How did they reconcile what they might have known at the time? Much more research is in order.
But that sort of research takes a lot of work, and passing judgement instead is much easier.
I think that, after 30 years, memories will be less than perfect. I do not remember who wrote the letter but think Eric would be a good candidate. It was passed out at the meeting, discussed, and then signed by those present. It is and was common practice at Rittenhouse Society meetings to pass such statements or resolutions. They were not brought up again in future meetings as there were always new matters to consider and vote on.
Walter was, as mentioned earlier, dropped from the ANA. He was in the process of being removed as an ANS member but this was due to non-payment of dues, not the legal problems. I heard later that several ANS members had covered his dues payments but this had nothing to do with the Rittenhouse Society.
Another piece of the puzzle, and another historical snapshot. But It does not provide any insight into how they viewed or reconciled his crime. Surely you are not implying that they supported his behavior.
Why not approach the surviving members of the award process? The ones who haven't already been alienated, I mean.
I do note that in one of the original letters you posted the sender was asking Breen for advice or opinions on a coin, so they obviously still viewed him as a critical resource of information, despite his incarceration. Did they completely separate his numismatic knowledge from his "other life"? Did they think he was the devil but feined respect in order to mine his legendary body of knowledge?
There is an odd (to us) incongruity to the whole situation that merits more research, and sooner rather than later so that the surviving participants can give firsthand accounts.
Interesting thread for sure...I have learned much from it.
It's taught me how little I know about the hobby that I have chosen to take up most of my pastime. I knew nothing of Walter Breen other than what dealers or shop owners may have quoted to me when referencing a Breen number. I knew little about his Numismatic accomplishments and nothing of his personal life. It's amazing that I could have collected coins for a decade in the 80's and 90's and then after a long break for the last 8 years and know so little about this man.
As far as the award goes it may have been initiated by some of his closest colleagues to maybe cheer him up in a bad situation after he was imprisoned for his crimes. I think they were trying to respect his Numismatic accomplishments and set aside his personal wrongdoings. Was this right or is this wrong to give someone like Breen an award? At the time it may have felt right, but today people may feel differently. That is hard to say without having been there at the time and knowing all the facts. Just like me, some people may not have had all the facts.
Edited for grammar.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
Amazing that in numismatics people are still sucking up to the "big players" years after they are dead.
Wow. Can't believe this thread is still alive when it's clearly a violation of Rule #2.
Facts don't care about feelings.
He was a pedo. Fact.
He's dead. Fact.
The hobby itself has moved on without him. Fact.
Some people gave him an award 30 years ago. Fact.
Everything else is balloon juice.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The controversy surrounding Walter Breen’s designation as "Scholar of the 20th Century" speaks to a broader question: Can a person’s moral failings coexist with recognition of their achievements in a specific field? This is not a defense of Breen’s actions as a felon, which are reprehensible, but rather a discussion about the separation of contributions to a field from personal morality.
History is replete with individuals whose achievements have profoundly shaped their disciplines, despite their personal failings. Consider Richard Wagner, a composer whose music is revered but whose personal views, particularly his antisemitism, remain deeply problematic. Or Thomas Jefferson, who contributed immeasurably to the founding of the United States while being a slave owner. Similarly, Breen’s unparalleled scholarship and contributions to numismatics—cataloging coins, analyzing their history, and shaping the field’s academic rigor—represent achievements that stand apart from his criminal actions.
Recognizing Breen as a scholar does not equate to excusing or ignoring his crimes. It acknowledges that, within the realm of numismatics, his work was extraordinary. If we were to reject all historical recognition for individuals with moral failings, we would risk erasing vast swaths of human achievement. The key is to contextualize such honors: to celebrate the contributions without condoning the conduct.
A fitting analogy might be the Nobel Prize, awarded for specific achievements regardless of the recipient’s broader life. Fritz Haber, for instance, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of the Haber-Bosch process, which revolutionized agriculture and saved billions from starvation. Yet Haber was also instrumental in developing chemical weapons used in World War I. His recognition reflects his scientific contributions, not an endorsement of his moral choices.
Similarly, in Breen’s case, the honor of being named "Coin Scholar of the 20th Century" should be understood narrowly: it celebrates his contributions to numismatics, not his character. To acknowledge this distinction is not to condone, but to recognize the complexity of human achievement.
Ultimately, society benefits from a balanced approach—learning from the contributions of flawed individuals while condemning and holding them accountable for their moral failings. This nuanced perspective allows us to preserve the integrity of disciplines like numismatics without erasing uncomfortable truths about the past.
My Early Large Cents
But I can’t separate the fact that Breen apparently preyed on YNs at shows. To the extent that parents and some ANA members were worried enough to take special precautions. The moral failings are inextricably linked to the hobby.
Sheldon presents the same problem - alleged theft of some of the very coins he was researching. Granted, the consequences of theft are far less. Stolen objects can be returned.
Haber and Jefferson’s contributions were far greater and their sins were not illegal at the time.
>
Would be my honor to conduct interviews, but not with who you suggest.
Rather, I believe the story of the unnamed, and unknown persons at the ANA who had the moral fortitude to resist a very powerful faction within, should be told—and celebrated. See below. They stood tall, and saved the ANA, and the numismatic community from perhaps an extinction level bad decision. Don't think it would have survived long as an organization that reclassified and recognized pedophilia as just an illness.
I note many have taken exception to this thread as a rehash or a rewrite of history. I do not see it that way. Adding unknown facts is not rewriting. Breen was not some lone wolf/rogue figure in the community. The issue goes beyond his scholarship. That story was never told.
The more I unravel the Breen onion, the more difficult it becomes to explain everything away as simply friendship.
Since we are acknowledging….
Here are the acknowledgements from the inside cover of Breen’s Encylclopedia. You guys want to have a book burning event ?
Don’t forget to burn your Red books.
Everyone, this is why this topic really is going to get nowhere. Look, Breen was a numismatic giant at a time where CNN/FOX/etc were not around haha!
Many people did not know the extent of his crimes in the early 90s. Many people on the list of great numismatists have some issues in their personal lives. Without saying too much, there are a couple current people being “looked at” for similar reasons with youth. Every hobby has good people and bad people.
The truth is, while we all feel something negative about past crimes, this is a well known situation and while controversy abounds, it’s better to move on. 1992 was what it was, not the same at all as 2024. I agree that we can literally fire to the stake with anyone back then, but for the better of the hobby and the business; let’s focus on what we all love, the hobby of collecting coins. That apparently was what was done in 1992, we should keep the same today. It’s in the past, hey, Walter had a Wikipedia page which details much of his transgressions. We only focus on numismatics here.
This thread isn’t about U.S. coins. And numerous individuals - posters, as well as non participants - have been insulted, or worse.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agree Mark. We typed it at the same time. Let’s just move on and enjoy our hobby!
This thread is certainly about numismatics and numismatists. Why does it need to be closed? It should stand on its own, unmoderated. I'm glad to see PCGS let it run its course.
It's ok to have discussions and opinions. That is what makes forums interesting.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
It's a complicated subject, and I am torn to give me opinion especially in the prism of the present.
Those gentlemen awarded a brilliant mind and award, and they chose to look past some heinous crimes.
I loathe pedophiles.
I happen to admire the enthusiasm and scope of Breen's work.
One can be appreciated without hatred of the other, and without a public award
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
These are serious flaws. It's always a matter of degree.
Snapshots in history mean nothing. There are always moral and ethical peoples in that period who take the high ground.
Are they not "men of their times"?
Let's give credit where due and learn from history, not wipe it clean.
IMO it's enough said, points are well taken and people have been informed, exactly what a message board should accomplish.
In reading this thread and the numerous posts to it the following thought comes to my mind:
The conduct Breen engaged in and for which he was charged and convicted is such (in the past, today and in the future) that some persons have been, are and will be horrified and repulsed by it; some persons have been, are and will be ambivalent about it; and some persons have been, are and will advocate for it, celebrate it and give kudos to society becoming more tolerant, progressive and inclusive of alternative lifestyles (including those that are immoral and/or illegal).
I have considered purchasing a book or two authored by Breen but I simply cannot bring myself to do so.
I believe it is human nature to forgive/forget someone's egregious transgressions from afar. At least until those very things affect your inner circle, family members etc.
I only suggest that the members that signed the letter were aware of the conviction (singular), I did not suggest that anyone was aware of the previous convictions. However, if you read what denga wrote he does say that everyone that signed the letter was "fully aware of his other life"; that suggests possibly knowing more about Breen than just the one conviction.
I am not condemning those that signed the letter, I do not feel that I would have been or would be comfortable signing such a letter myself if I was aware of someone's other life. When bestowing an award to an individual I feel the whole person should be considered not just one part of the person. Take Pete Rose as an example, there are many who feel that his achievements on the field should be recognized despite his transgressions. But I think the decision to uphold the hall of fame ban is the correct decision and sets the "right" example for those that follow and play the game. Just as in this case I do not think that giving Breen this award was the correct thing to do, but I can understand the reasoning behind the action.
As many have said there is no upside to rescinding the award, erasing history is not a valuable action. But a healthy discussion of this event and the reasons and motivations behind it are productive and could be helpful for future similar situations; maybe.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.