@coinbuf said:
When bestowing an award to an individual I feel the whole person should be considered not just one part of the person.
Simple, succinct, and encompasses my feelings on this thread.
I agree. Oftentimes, awardees are exemplars - those that exemplify the traits that one should live up to in order to gain such an honor. For life achievement awards, this generally encompasses the entirety of one's legacy in a field.
Having worked in a field where speaking to victims of these crimes has taken place- I don't think forgiveness would ever enter my mind under any circumstance, and that is without even considering if it was to one of your own.
There are acts in life where there is no forgiveness.
@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.
Yeah! I'm going to go finds some CSA General's statues to deface and start a letter writing campaign to get Pulitzer prizes yanked from all those lying Journalists. No I'm not. I live in the present and not much offends me - especially things I cannot change. "Can't we all just get along and stop being sniveling little snowflakes!"
If we want to all "just get along", we could start by not calling each other "sniveling little snowflakes".
And I say that as someone who sees no point in revisiting this award. It serves no purpose to call each other names.
@braddick said:
Having worked in a field where speaking to victims of these crimes has taken place- I don't think forgiveness would ever enter my mind under any circumstance, and that is without even considering if it was to one of your own.
There are acts in life where there is no forgiveness.
That's your choice. Personally, I think there's always the potential for forgiveness to be earned, and then given. Not that I have any reason to think that Breen earned our forgiveness. Anyway, you don't have to forgive someone to have some compassion for them, or to do something nice for them.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@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.
Yeah! I'm going to go finds some CSA General's statues to deface and start a letter writing campaign to get Pulitzer prizes yanked from all those lying Journalists. No I'm not. I live in the present and not much offends me - especially things I cannot change. "Can't we all just get along and stop being sniveling little snowflakes!"
On one hand, you claim that not much offends you - especially things you can’t change. But on the other, you apparently resort to name calling quite easily. That makes it more difficult for all of us to “just get along”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coinbuf said:
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 don’t know what the other signatories knew about Breen but my knowledge was limited. I knew from a friend about the Bellboy matter as well as vague rumors about his contacts with older teen-agers and young adults. That sort of behavior, in my opinion, was clearly not appropriate for a coin convention and the basis of my comment about the other life. At the time of the Society letter, however, I knew nothing about a conviction or the allegations about children. Why coinbuf would say otherwise only he can answer.
I don’t know what the other signatories knew about Breen but my knowledge was limited. I knew from a friend about the Bellboy matter as well as vague rumors about his contacts with older teen-agers and young adults. That sort of behavior, in my opinion, was clearly not appropriate for a coin convention and the basis of my comment about the other life. At the time of the Society letter, however, I knew nothing about a conviction or the allegations about children. Why coinbuf would say otherwise only he can answer.
Thank you for the context. I understand your previous reaction my posts. I say this in no way to offend you, but I had not heard of you specifically until you entered the thread. It was not meant as any kind of attack, personal or otherwise. My background is not numismatics. It is a hobby I have revisited later in life. My interest, at the moment is on the research side. My writings which you asked about are in a professional field unrelated to coins.
I found documents that I thought relevant for the community to know. I posted them. The topic is a sensitive one, has caused division. That sometimes happens when uncomfortable facts are brought to light.
@braddick said:
Having worked in a field where speaking to victims of these crimes has taken place- I don't think forgiveness would ever enter my mind under any circumstance, and that is without even considering if it was to one of your own.
There are acts in life where there is no forgiveness.
Having been one of those childhood "victims" who was abducted, kidnapped , held against my will, and molested by a grown man at the age of 9, after a little league baseball game (1964), I can understand yours and others' sentiment on the matter. That's why forgiveness is "divine". It takes a higher power to forgive (it is not, and was never within me to forgive). However, the OP and others are holding those who signed this letter accountable. That is where I take a different stance. I don't need to forgive people signing a letter. That's like saying I can't forgive the signers of the Declaration of Independence because some of them were slave owners.
@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.
I have heard over and over about all the MAJOR ERRORS in Breen's book. Al, you have made a claim. You have been asked to give examples. AS USUAL IN NUMISMATIC CHAT ROOMS very few members EVER back up the stuff they post! It is truly disappointing to me. AFAIK, there has been no published reference book or major research that has not been improved upon. It is said that modern researches such as yourself stand on the shoulders of others whenever their discovery is not totally unique.
So... out of curiosity, I should like to learn of some MEANINGFUL major mistakes. Hopefully, as they become more publicly known, a new edition of the Encyclopedia can be published one day with corrections!
@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.
I have heard over and over about all the MAJOR ERRORS in Breen's book. Al, you have made a claim. You have been asked to give examples. AS USUAL IN NUMISMATIC CHAT ROOMS very few members EVER back up the stuff they post! It is truly disappointing to me. AFAIK, there has been no published reference book or major research that has not been improved upon. It is said that modern researches such as yourself stand on the shoulders of others whenever their discovery is not totally unique.
So... out of curiosity, I should like to learn of some MEANINGFUL major mistakes. Hopefully, as they become more publicly known, a new edition of the Encyclopedia can be published one day with corrections!
I will state that I believe this is beating a dead horse, and I think anything below adds nothing to the conversation. However, I will provide evidence as requested.
What was asked is an impossible task - the number of errors made will likely never be known. There will always be examples, but all that the poster who asked for examples needs to do to invalidate any sort of information is to raise the bar. 10 examples won't be enough. 100 won't be enough. On and on it will go.
Regardless, I shall give one major glaring example, from a Heritage Auctions description of a coin that sold for $270,000.
"Fact and fiction are interwoven in the tale of the proof 1883-O dollars, stories that have been repeated so many times they become accepted as truth, even though there is no factual basis for them. The accepted version of the creation of these pieces is contained in Walter Breen's Proof Encyclopedia from 1977:
"Made for presentation to officials of some local celebration, possibly having to do with the cotton industry, though equally likely having to do with the establishment of Tulane University as the State University of Louisiana. The Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint called them proofs in AJN, 1884, p. 46. The only one I have seen 'carries its own credentials' like the 1879."
Pure invention and speculation. The only truth in Breen's statement is that the coin "carries its own credentials." There is no mention of the coins being proofs in the AJN. There is, however, a review of the Sampson sale from July 9, 1884, that essentially just repeated the description from the catalog. That catalog description reads:
"352 1883. Standard Dollar O Mint. Brilliant proof. Extremely rare. Only 12 struck."
I will provide a statement from Roger Brudette here as well, another researcher who echoes a lot of what has already been said. Much of what Roger says is heavily reflected in the description above:
"Some of Breen's research was good and some was not. His earlier work is reliable for the period in which it was written, but even back then he had a tendency to invent answers rather than look in original sources. In later years - especially from the Encyclopedia days and FCI, he blatantly lied, invented "facts," and falsified information. Portions of the Encyclopedia are now recognized as fabrication and lies; other portions have been verified as accurate; and yet other parts are under examination by various specialists. It is impossible to assemble a comprehensive errata table because it is impossible to separate fiction from honest error or reporting gaps.
The fashion of not accurately citing sources of information further complicates the situation relative to Breen, Taxay, and others.
Personally, I have seen notes by Don Taxay and Dorothy Paschal among archival letters, but only one indirect item relating to Breen. Further, the content of Breen's publications on Saint-Gaudens coins and others of that era, proof coins and processes, and other subjects indicate that he did not research original materials, but copied and aggregated both information and hearsay of others. While associated with John Ford, Jr., he seems to have written what Ford wanted and not the truth. Eric Newman's papers have examples of this.
Traditionally, American numismatics has been dominated by rumor, insinuation, blind anecdote and self-serving lies. When challenged about a statement, the common response is something like, "Oh, I'm not supposed to tell anyone," or "But so-and-so 'expert' said that," or some defensive variant. The "UK hoard" tale, is typical.
To be blunt, and these are my research opinions, only:
Taxay is usually truthful, but entirely superficial. At least he did some original research.
Breen is not trustworthy in any respect. This is because so much of his published material is patently false.
In research, I aim to build as complete a picture as possible from original sources. I then use public and published materials to corroborate and fill in gaps or background. (For example in RAC 1905-1908 I used high quality biographies, newspapers and private letters to fill in the background for the Roosevelt & Saint-Gaudens coins and medals.)"
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.
I wrote that I was going to stop reading this thread but I can't...it is like sugar to a rat (me posting as Alan?)
I don't believe that letter to Breen was even known by 90% of the coin collectors and dealers alive at the time and 100% of his victims. I met Breen and many of the signers and had no clue what was going on except that Breen was both very odd and the center of attention wherever he was at a show.
Besides, I like to separate what people can do for me from how immoral, ruthless, or crooked they may be. I could give a modern example we will soon be dealing with in this country but it is against the rules.
@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.
Making up numbers is NOTHING. IMO, most guess at numbers and rarity of coins as pop reports are flawed. Serious errors made out of a lack of hands on research, lies, or plain ignorance are the important flaws to watch for. Saying there were only two reverse hubs for Trade dollars is the same as saying a virus did not originate from a lab conducting research on it. Those are the type of flaws that I would like to read about HERE that everyone says are in Breen's book. Those "flaws" that several here claim to know about are very important for all of us to know. That's what these forums are all about. We learn from the experts. I'm waiting. I have Breen's book - then I can go see for myself.
@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.
I think it was in the history bin until you started the thread.
I don't think the ghost of Breen is going to come out of the grave and get the YN's many who may not know of Breen, Sheldon, or you.
I don't like living people judging America's past history of Numismatics. Better to acknowledge it so it does not happen again than tear down statues or retract awards.
I'll bet just about every ANA Hall of Fame dealer member screwed someone at least once in their long career. I say let them all rest.
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 really hate the squeaky-clean, "do-gooders" I run across in this hobby. That said, JCH, what do you collect aside from likes and agrees? I'm a generalist. I collect everything numismatic: books, medals, tokens, ancients, paper and coins. If I had Musk's money, I would ruin the hobby for everyone by buying up all kinds of neat stuff as soon as I saw it and start my very own ANS Library and Collections for Numismatic research.
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.
Hopefully times have changed.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I understand your view. You have every right to form and hold your own opinion. I took no offense from your earlier post/snow flake reference. I get where that comes from and your general societal concern.
Sensitive topic. People can see things differently. That’s a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Seems we have a promising generation of researchers coming up. One has demonstrated some integrity beyond his years here, and elsewhere, repeatedly. That’s sure a positive for the community.
Maybe we can let the thread end on that positive note?
@coinbuf said:
When bestowing an award to an individual I feel the whole person should be considered not just one part of the person.
Simple, succinct, and encompasses my feelings on this thread.
I agree. Oftentimes, awardees are exemplars - those that exemplify the traits that one should live up to in order to gain such an honor. For life achievement awards, this generally encompasses the entirety of one's legacy in a field.
Judging from your start, one day you may end up on everyone that matters list.
@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.
Yeah! I'm going to go finds some CSA General's statues to deface and start a letter writing campaign to get Pulitzer prizes yanked from all those lying Journalists. No I'm not. I live in the present and not much offends me - especially things I cannot change. "Can't we all just get along and stop being sniveling little snowflakes!"
On one hand, you claim that not much offends you - especially things you can’t change. But on the other, you apparently resort to name calling quite easily. That makes it more difficult for all of us to “just get along”.
AFAIK, normal people may not be offend by something yet express their feelings in ways that might offend others. As one of my favorite teaches quoted from a Harvard scholar..."We live in a world of tooth and claw." Sheep get eaten and snowflakes melt. My country and succeeding generations of numismatists have become soft, needy, and judgmental. Breen got what he deserved and he is very lucky he didn't get what he really deserved for what de did. Nevertheless, he had to be considered as one of the great Numismatists for other things he did. He is dead and there is ONLY ONE ENTITY that has the power to forgive. HE does not post here.
For me, there is a simple black and white separation involved - Dr. Jekyll (the monster) and Mr. Hyde (a knowledgeable numismatist). While this has been an entertaining thread to post on - none of this matters one bit in the big world I live in where 99%+ of the people never heard of Walter Breen, the ANA, or any of us.
I don’t know what the other signatories knew about Breen but my knowledge was limited. I knew from a friend about the Bellboy matter as well as vague rumors about his contacts with older teen-agers and young adults. That sort of behavior, in my opinion, was clearly not appropriate for a coin convention and the basis of my comment about the other life. At the time of the Society letter, however, I knew nothing about a conviction or the allegations about children. Why coinbuf would say otherwise only he can answer.
Thank you for the context. I understand your previous reaction my posts. I say this in no way to offend you, but I had not heard of you specifically until you entered the thread. It was not meant as any kind of attack, personal or otherwise. My background is not numismatics. It is a hobby I have revisited later in life. My interest, at the moment is on the research side. My writings which you asked about are in a professional field unrelated to coins.
I found documents that I thought relevant for the community to know. I posted them. The topic is a sensitive one, has caused division. That sometimes happens when uncomfortable facts are brought to light.
Thank you again for the above context.
As I posted before, thank you for your research. I still would not change the award if I were in that group..
I understand your view. You have every right to form and hold your own opinion. I took no offense from your earlier post/snow flake reference. I get where that comes from and your general societal concern.
Sensitive topic. People can see things differently. That’s a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Seems we have a promising generation of researchers coming up. One has demonstrated some integrity beyond his years here, and elsewhere, repeatedly. That’s sure a positive for the community.
Maybe we can let the thread end on that positive note?
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
That's your choice. Personally, I think there's always the potential for forgiveness to be earned, and then given. Not that I have any reason to think that Breen earned our forgiveness. Anyway, you don't have to forgive someone to have some compassion for them, or to do something nice for them.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to propaganda uses and evasions. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to Soviet propaganda. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to Soviet propaganda. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
No, although I didn't take it that way. I didn't read it as putting all crimes in the same box. I read it a referring to the response, or lack of response, to ethical violations. And the "throwing stones" i took a referring to glass houses. As I read it, it basically said we were all guilty of ignoring these things in the past, so we don't "throw stones". Only the newer people, who are not involved in that earlier inaction, feel the moral capacity to "throw stones".
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to Soviet propaganda. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
This poster is dealing with CU members from all over the world, many who don't understand the English language. Most things in life happen in degrees. Take the way coins are graded. Low grade coins have a higher degree of wear than coins grading higher. Therefore coin dealers who do immoral things like selling over graded coins to ignorant collectors are not as bad as a numismatic researcher molesting children. Whataboutit now?
PS I did think of something similar. The Church had a problem with child molesters. What they did was to take them out of the situation and move them into another. That did not solve the problem. Perhaps this was done because the Church regarded what the priests offered (outside of their crime) was necessary to keep. While that should not be the case, does it make sense?
@coinbuf said:
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 don’t know what the other signatories knew about Breen but my knowledge was limited. I knew from a friend about the Bellboy matter as well as vague rumors about his contacts with older teen-agers and young adults. That sort of behavior, in my opinion, was clearly not appropriate for a coin convention and the basis of my comment about the other life. At the time of the Society letter, however, I knew nothing about a conviction or the allegations about children. Why coinbuf would say otherwise only he can answer.
@denga - I really appreciate the added first-hand and first-person perspective.
I hope that you'll consider writing your sentiments and stories down, either in an article or even just a letter that can be filed away for use by anyone researching this subject in the future. Clearly it is a component of the subject that is underrepresented in the archival record.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to Soviet propaganda. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
No, although I didn't take it that way. I didn't read it as putting all crimes in the same box. I read it a referring to the response, or lack of response, to ethical violations. And the "throwing stones" i took a referring to glass houses. As I read it, it basically said we were all guilty of ignoring these things in the past, so we don't "throw stones". Only the newer people, who are not involved in that earlier inaction, feel the moral capacity to "throw stones".
** But**, you may be right.
NO! YOU ARE 100% correct and have proven to me over and over again to be an extremely well educated member of this forum. That's one reason I enjoy butting heads with you whenever we disagree.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to Soviet propaganda. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
This poster is dealing with CU members from all over the world, many who don't understand the English language. Most things in life happen in degrees. Take the way coins are graded. Low grade coins have a higher degree of wear than coins grading higher. Therefore coin dealers who do immoral things like selling over graded coins to ignorant collectors are not as bad as a numismatic researcher molesting children. Whataboutit now?
PS I did think of something similar. The Church had a problem with child molesters. What they did was to take them out of the situation and move them into another. That did not solve the problem. Perhaps this was done because the Church regarded what the priests offered (outside of their crime) was necessary to keep. While that should not be the case, does it make sense?
I really don't think you want to go there. That was a straight up cover-up. It was absolutely the wrong thing to do. And it had nothing to do with the priests offering something important that somehow justified tolerance of their crime to the Church.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to Soviet propaganda. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
No, although I didn't take it that way. I didn't read it as putting all crimes in the same box. I read it a referring to the response, or lack of response, to ethical violations. And the "throwing stones" i took a referring to glass houses. As I read it, it basically said we were all guilty of ignoring these things in the past, so we don't "throw stones". Only the newer people, who are not involved in that earlier inaction, feel the moral capacity to "throw stones".
** But**, you may be right.
NO! YOU ARE 100% correct and have proven to me over and over again to be an extremely well educated member of this forum. That's one reason I enjoy butting heads with you whenever we disagree.
No one is tearing down statues. No one is rewriting history. No one is suggesting we can’t learn anything from Breen’s writings or that they shouldn’t be read. But awarding people who commit heinous crimes (within our community no less) is completely unacceptable. And there is a path to make a (still inadequate) fix of the gross mistake of awarding someone who preyed on children and YNs. Nor is it a slippery slope toward taking away awards from dealers who may have ripped off a few (or many) folks. Those dealers were not convicted of serious crimes in a court of law.
It’s also been pointed out that Breen’s research is not up to the standards once assumed. Which I believe is grounds for at least a thorough investigation into potential retraction of the award.
This position seems to offend you to the point of name calling and accusing those younger and with a different points of view of being a “snowflake” (in this and other threads). You seem to conflate any critical examination of people and events with larger political considerations and without any serious thought of the merits of this particular issue.
It is a slippery slope indeed. Terrible transgressions that happened in the past, under different circumstances that were either ignored, considered acceptable, or covered-up are now examined under our rules. That does not make them less bad. They happened. Being offended, whining about it, trying to destroy history, or taking back deserved awards changes nothing. AU's are now MS.
I say get over it! Hate the man for what he did/praise the man for what he did. It is that simple to me. We are all judged today and will be in the future when it really matters.
Also disappointing, and I personally think disingenuous, to see ANA explain Breen’s fall only as : “ Breen was flying high until later it was learned that many of his “facts” were unsubstantiated.”
Rittenhouse Society is aware of this thread. Perhaps the ANA might catch wind.
Will wait and see what, if any action, might be taken. Have no doubt that many were misled. Others plainly were not.
Saw no one here defend Breen’s child crimes. But the thread was not opened to discuss crimes like that which are far, far, beyond the pale of any reasonable discussion.
Don’t think history should be “erased” , but think the community as a whole has some responsibility to be candid---about the good, and the bad—concerning those held out to the up and coming generation as figures to be emulated or admired. Breen should not, and perhaps others are not exactly in line with what their legends/ heliography says they were (are).
I know where I firmly stand. I respect that when dealing with how to treat new facts about past figures others might have a different view.
Just a suggestion--- up to each to write whatever he/she may please—but perhaps instead of letting the ghost of a monster like Breen divide this forum by people imperfectly talking past each other about his legacy (understandable given the underlying crimes) --- a refocus of discussion on a more narrow question? Perhaps:
“Has the legacy of Breen and others been adequately addressed by the wider community, and if not, what, if anything should numismatic organizations/societies do?
It is a slippery slope indeed. Terrible transgressions that happened in the past, under different circumstances that were either ignored, considered acceptable, or covered-up are now examined under our rules. That does not make them less bad. They happened. Being offended, whining about it, trying to destroy history, or taking back deserved awards changes nothing. AU's are now MS.
I say get over it! Hate the man for what he did/praise the man for what he did. It is that simple to me. We are all judged today and will be in the future when it really matters.
We aren’t applying “our” standards- he was convicted in court by the standards of his time ~1990. And the victims are still alive.
It is a slippery slope indeed. Terrible transgressions that happened in the past, under different circumstances that were either ignored, considered acceptable, or covered-up are now examined under our rules. That does not make them less bad. They happened. Being offended, whining about it, trying to destroy history, or taking back deserved awards changes nothing. AU's are now MS.
I say get over it! Hate the man for what he did/praise the man for what he did. It is that simple to me. We are all judged today and will be in the future when it really matters.
We aren’t applying “our” standards- he was convicted in court by the standards of his time ~1990. And the victims are still alive.
We aren’t talking about 1492, 1776 or 1865.
The crime has not changed. I think a lot of things that went on in the 90's were covered-up or ignored; yet have come to light in the 2020's. NO ONE HERE HAS DEFENDED CRIMINAL ACTS. Some say even Hitler had a good side - he built highways. LOL. Breen wrote books when he was not blowing his nose on drapes.
Coin World: "The Institute of Numismatic Authenticators, the first U.S. coin authentication service, was founded in 1962 by that era’s ultimate numismatic scholar, Walter H. Breen. It quickly closed, but it's letterhead remained in use by the founder for years." ANACS was the second (1972) and INSAB was the third (1976).
Comments
Great post above.
Simple, succinct, and encompasses my feelings on this thread.
I agree. Oftentimes, awardees are exemplars - those that exemplify the traits that one should live up to in order to gain such an honor. For life achievement awards, this generally encompasses the entirety of one's legacy in a field.
Coin Photographer.
Having worked in a field where speaking to victims of these crimes has taken place- I don't think forgiveness would ever enter my mind under any circumstance, and that is without even considering if it was to one of your own.
There are acts in life where there is no forgiveness.
peacockcoins
If we want to all "just get along", we could start by not calling each other "sniveling little snowflakes".
And I say that as someone who sees no point in revisiting this award. It serves no purpose to call each other names.
That's your choice. Personally, I think there's always the potential for forgiveness to be earned, and then given. Not that I have any reason to think that Breen earned our forgiveness. Anyway, you don't have to forgive someone to have some compassion for them, or to do something nice for them.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
On one hand, you claim that not much offends you - especially things you can’t change. But on the other, you apparently resort to name calling quite easily. That makes it more difficult for all of us to “just get along”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Time to shut this down methinks.
I don’t know what the other signatories knew about Breen but my knowledge was limited. I knew from a friend about the Bellboy matter as well as vague rumors about his contacts with older teen-agers and young adults. That sort of behavior, in my opinion, was clearly not appropriate for a coin convention and the basis of my comment about the other life. At the time of the Society letter, however, I knew nothing about a conviction or the allegations about children. Why coinbuf would say otherwise only he can answer.
Thank you for the context. I understand your previous reaction my posts. I say this in no way to offend you, but I had not heard of you specifically until you entered the thread. It was not meant as any kind of attack, personal or otherwise. My background is not numismatics. It is a hobby I have revisited later in life. My interest, at the moment is on the research side. My writings which you asked about are in a professional field unrelated to coins.
I found documents that I thought relevant for the community to know. I posted them. The topic is a sensitive one, has caused division. That sometimes happens when uncomfortable facts are brought to light.
Thank you again for the above context.
Having been one of those childhood "victims" who was abducted, kidnapped , held against my will, and molested by a grown man at the age of 9, after a little league baseball game (1964), I can understand yours and others' sentiment on the matter. That's why forgiveness is "divine". It takes a higher power to forgive (it is not, and was never within me to forgive). However, the OP and others are holding those who signed this letter accountable. That is where I take a different stance. I don't need to forgive people signing a letter. That's like saying I can't forgive the signers of the Declaration of Independence because some of them were slave owners.
Yet most all of us would ruthlessly pick over his collection.
Like vultures sitting in a tree waiting for death.
This was second thought after the initial oooshka double take moment TBH.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
…except Breen wasn’t a collector or a dealer.
Otherwise, yeah, sure: vultures, death
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
I have heard over and over about all the MAJOR ERRORS in Breen's book. Al, you have made a claim. You have been asked to give examples. AS USUAL IN NUMISMATIC CHAT ROOMS very few members EVER back up the stuff they post! It is truly disappointing to me. AFAIK, there has been no published reference book or major research that has not been improved upon. It is said that modern researches such as yourself stand on the shoulders of others whenever their discovery is not totally unique.
So... out of curiosity, I should like to learn of some MEANINGFUL major mistakes. Hopefully, as they become more publicly known, a new edition of the Encyclopedia can be published one day with corrections!
I will state that I believe this is beating a dead horse, and I think anything below adds nothing to the conversation. However, I will provide evidence as requested.
What was asked is an impossible task - the number of errors made will likely never be known. There will always be examples, but all that the poster who asked for examples needs to do to invalidate any sort of information is to raise the bar. 10 examples won't be enough. 100 won't be enough. On and on it will go.
Regardless, I shall give one major glaring example, from a Heritage Auctions description of a coin that sold for $270,000.
"Fact and fiction are interwoven in the tale of the proof 1883-O dollars, stories that have been repeated so many times they become accepted as truth, even though there is no factual basis for them. The accepted version of the creation of these pieces is contained in Walter Breen's Proof Encyclopedia from 1977:
"Made for presentation to officials of some local celebration, possibly having to do with the cotton industry, though equally likely having to do with the establishment of Tulane University as the State University of Louisiana. The Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint called them proofs in AJN, 1884, p. 46. The only one I have seen 'carries its own credentials' like the 1879."
Pure invention and speculation. The only truth in Breen's statement is that the coin "carries its own credentials." There is no mention of the coins being proofs in the AJN. There is, however, a review of the Sampson sale from July 9, 1884, that essentially just repeated the description from the catalog. That catalog description reads:
"352 1883. Standard Dollar O Mint. Brilliant proof. Extremely rare. Only 12 struck."
I will provide a statement from Roger Brudette here as well, another researcher who echoes a lot of what has already been said. Much of what Roger says is heavily reflected in the description above:
"Some of Breen's research was good and some was not. His earlier work is reliable for the period in which it was written, but even back then he had a tendency to invent answers rather than look in original sources. In later years - especially from the Encyclopedia days and FCI, he blatantly lied, invented "facts," and falsified information. Portions of the Encyclopedia are now recognized as fabrication and lies; other portions have been verified as accurate; and yet other parts are under examination by various specialists. It is impossible to assemble a comprehensive errata table because it is impossible to separate fiction from honest error or reporting gaps.
The fashion of not accurately citing sources of information further complicates the situation relative to Breen, Taxay, and others.
Personally, I have seen notes by Don Taxay and Dorothy Paschal among archival letters, but only one indirect item relating to Breen. Further, the content of Breen's publications on Saint-Gaudens coins and others of that era, proof coins and processes, and other subjects indicate that he did not research original materials, but copied and aggregated both information and hearsay of others. While associated with John Ford, Jr., he seems to have written what Ford wanted and not the truth. Eric Newman's papers have examples of this.
Traditionally, American numismatics has been dominated by rumor, insinuation, blind anecdote and self-serving lies. When challenged about a statement, the common response is something like, "Oh, I'm not supposed to tell anyone," or "But so-and-so 'expert' said that," or some defensive variant. The "UK hoard" tale, is typical.
To be blunt, and these are my research opinions, only:
Taxay is usually truthful, but entirely superficial. At least he did some original research.
Breen is not trustworthy in any respect. This is because so much of his published material is patently false.
In research, I aim to build as complete a picture as possible from original sources. I then use public and published materials to corroborate and fill in gaps or background. (For example in RAC 1905-1908 I used high quality biographies, newspapers and private letters to fill in the background for the Roosevelt & Saint-Gaudens coins and medals.)"
Coin Photographer.
I wrote that I was going to stop reading this thread but I can't...it is like sugar to a rat (me posting as Alan?)
I don't believe that letter to Breen was even known by 90% of the coin collectors and dealers alive at the time and 100% of his victims. I met Breen and many of the signers and had no clue what was going on except that Breen was both very odd and the center of attention wherever he was at a show.
Besides, I like to separate what people can do for me from how immoral, ruthless, or crooked they may be. I could give a modern example we will soon be dealing with in this country but it is against the rules.
I think a thread documenting mistakes and updates of all numismatic research would be a valuable resource.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
There are plenty of corrected specialist works out there for collectors to read. Very few ever make an effort to do so.
And that's before everyone starts arguing about what the truth really is.
Coin Photographer.
Making up numbers is NOTHING. IMO, most guess at numbers and rarity of coins as pop reports are flawed. Serious errors made out of a lack of hands on research, lies, or plain ignorance are the important flaws to watch for. Saying there were only two reverse hubs for Trade dollars is the same as saying a virus did not originate from a lab conducting research on it. Those are the type of flaws that I would like to read about HERE that everyone says are in Breen's book. Those "flaws" that several here claim to know about are very important for all of us to know. That's what these forums are all about. We learn from the experts. I'm waiting. I have Breen's book - then I can go see for myself.
I really hate the squeaky-clean, "do-gooders" I run across in this hobby. That said, JCH, what do you collect aside from likes and agrees? I'm a generalist. I collect everything numismatic: books, medals, tokens, ancients, paper and coins. If I had Musk's money, I would ruin the hobby for everyone by buying up all kinds of neat stuff as soon as I saw it and start my very own ANS Library and Collections for Numismatic research.
Say What! ROTFL. This comment coming from a well-known and respected authority on the contributions of the letter signers I'm sure - NOT! Son, I doubt you were even born in the 90's and have ever read any of Denga's columns.
I understand your view. You have every right to form and hold your own opinion. I took no offense from your earlier post/snow flake reference. I get where that comes from and your general societal concern.
Sensitive topic. People can see things differently. That’s a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Seems we have a promising generation of researchers coming up. One has demonstrated some integrity beyond his years here, and elsewhere, repeatedly. That’s sure a positive for the community.
Maybe we can let the thread end on that positive note?
Judging from your start, one day you may end up on everyone that matters list.
AFAIK, normal people may not be offend by something yet express their feelings in ways that might offend others. As one of my favorite teaches quoted from a Harvard scholar..."We live in a world of tooth and claw." Sheep get eaten and snowflakes melt. My country and succeeding generations of numismatists have become soft, needy, and judgmental. Breen got what he deserved and he is very lucky he didn't get what he really deserved for what de did. Nevertheless, he had to be considered as one of the great Numismatists for other things he did. He is dead and there is ONLY ONE ENTITY that has the power to forgive. HE does not post here.
For me, there is a simple black and white separation involved - Dr. Jekyll (the monster) and Mr. Hyde (a knowledgeable numismatist). While this has been an entertaining thread to post on - none of this matters one bit in the big world I live in where 99%+ of the people never heard of Walter Breen, the ANA, or any of us.
As I posted before, thank you for your research. I still would not change the award if I were in that group..
Unlike Breen's demise.
peacockcoins
The soft language in this thread is disturbing. He didn’t just make mistakes. It isn’t just bad behavior. He wasn’t just some convicted felon.
He raped children. He was a child rapist.
He got off easy with the cancer.
No one should ever utter his name again for the rest of our existence.
I'm sorry you missed my point. I did not criticize Breen's or anyone else's numismatic work for that matter.
But if the numismatic community was going to brush aside something as disgraceful as Breen's crimes, to the point where he gets awarded in prison, what else was going to be overlooked. It is still confounding 30 years later.
Nevermind again.
So am I. Breen may be the worst case but there are so many worms in the wooden box of numismatic organizations that hardly any one besides the post 80's arrivals on the scene are picking up the rocks to throw around.
“Whataboutism” is a terrible argument.
Actual, in general, it isn't. It's called "evidence". Inductive reasoning relies on "what about" to establish patterns.
Apple falls from tree... what about oranges... what about rocks on a cliff.... what about planets in the ether....oh.... let's call it gravity!
The term has come to be considered deflection in political circles due to propaganda uses and evasions. However, in more general usage, it is a perfectly reasonable method of inquiry, even in political circles. For example, the law favors X... but what about Y (different than X) and Z...I guess the law doesn't favor X.
The poster earlier referred to dealers who had ripped people off as in the same category as Breen’s crimes against children. Do you feel the same?
No, although I didn't take it that way. I didn't read it as putting all crimes in the same box. I read it a referring to the response, or lack of response, to ethical violations. And the "throwing stones" i took a referring to glass houses. As I read it, it basically said we were all guilty of ignoring these things in the past, so we don't "throw stones". Only the newer people, who are not involved in that earlier inaction, feel the moral capacity to "throw stones".
But, you may be right.
This poster is dealing with CU members from all over the world, many who don't understand the English language. Most things in life happen in degrees. Take the way coins are graded. Low grade coins have a higher degree of wear than coins grading higher. Therefore coin dealers who do immoral things like selling over graded coins to ignorant collectors are not as bad as a numismatic researcher molesting children. Whataboutit now?
PS I did think of something similar. The Church had a problem with child molesters. What they did was to take them out of the situation and move them into another. That did not solve the problem. Perhaps this was done because the Church regarded what the priests offered (outside of their crime) was necessary to keep. While that should not be the case, does it make sense?
@denga - I really appreciate the added first-hand and first-person perspective.
I hope that you'll consider writing your sentiments and stories down, either in an article or even just a letter that can be filed away for use by anyone researching this subject in the future. Clearly it is a component of the subject that is underrepresented in the archival record.
NO! YOU ARE 100% correct and have proven to me over and over again to be an extremely well educated member of this forum. That's one reason I enjoy butting heads with you whenever we disagree.
I really don't think you want to go there. That was a straight up cover-up. It was absolutely the wrong thing to do. And it had nothing to do with the priests offering something important that somehow justified tolerance of their crime to the Church.
This is a horrible argument.
No one is tearing down statues. No one is rewriting history. No one is suggesting we can’t learn anything from Breen’s writings or that they shouldn’t be read. But awarding people who commit heinous crimes (within our community no less) is completely unacceptable. And there is a path to make a (still inadequate) fix of the gross mistake of awarding someone who preyed on children and YNs. Nor is it a slippery slope toward taking away awards from dealers who may have ripped off a few (or many) folks. Those dealers were not convicted of serious crimes in a court of law.
It’s also been pointed out that Breen’s research is not up to the standards once assumed. Which I believe is grounds for at least a thorough investigation into potential retraction of the award.
This position seems to offend you to the point of name calling and accusing those younger and with a different points of view of being a “snowflake” (in this and other threads). You seem to conflate any critical examination of people and events with larger political considerations and without any serious thought of the merits of this particular issue.
PN,
It is a slippery slope indeed. Terrible transgressions that happened in the past, under different circumstances that were either ignored, considered acceptable, or covered-up are now examined under our rules. That does not make them less bad. They happened. Being offended, whining about it, trying to destroy history, or taking back deserved awards changes nothing. AU's are now MS.
I say get over it! Hate the man for what he did/praise the man for what he did. It is that simple to me. We are all judged today and will be in the future when it really matters.
Deleted
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Always good to follow the money……
Was interesting to enter the search term “Breen“ in ANA’s self-published 125 Years of Collecting etc., to see the business inter-relationships.
17 hits-Too many to post here.
https://www.money.org/125yearsofcollecting/
Also disappointing, and I personally think disingenuous, to see ANA explain Breen’s fall only as : “ Breen was flying high until later it was learned that many of his “facts” were unsubstantiated.”
Rittenhouse Society is aware of this thread. Perhaps the ANA might catch wind.
Will wait and see what, if any action, might be taken. Have no doubt that many were misled. Others plainly were not.
Saw no one here defend Breen’s child crimes. But the thread was not opened to discuss crimes like that which are far, far, beyond the pale of any reasonable discussion.
Don’t think history should be “erased” , but think the community as a whole has some responsibility to be candid---about the good, and the bad—concerning those held out to the up and coming generation as figures to be emulated or admired. Breen should not, and perhaps others are not exactly in line with what their legends/ heliography says they were (are).
I know where I firmly stand. I respect that when dealing with how to treat new facts about past figures others might have a different view.
Just a suggestion--- up to each to write whatever he/she may please—but perhaps instead of letting the ghost of a monster like Breen divide this forum by people imperfectly talking past each other about his legacy (understandable given the underlying crimes) --- a refocus of discussion on a more narrow question? Perhaps:
“Has the legacy of Breen and others been adequately addressed by the wider community, and if not, what, if anything should numismatic organizations/societies do?
can't edit above comment-------typo--- legends/hagiography
@JCH22,
Thanks for that ANA link.
We aren’t applying “our” standards- he was convicted in court by the standards of his time ~1990. And the victims are still alive.
We aren’t talking about 1492, 1776 or 1865.
The crime has not changed. I think a lot of things that went on in the 90's were covered-up or ignored; yet have come to light in the 2020's. NO ONE HERE HAS DEFENDED CRIMINAL ACTS. Some say even Hitler had a good side - he built highways. LOL. Breen wrote books when he was not blowing his nose on drapes.
As a student of coin grading I flunked! Who knew?
Coin World: "The Institute of Numismatic Authenticators, the first U.S. coin authentication service, was founded in 1962 by that era’s ultimate numismatic scholar, Walter H. Breen. It quickly closed, but it's letterhead remained in use by the founder for years." ANACS was the second (1972) and INSAB was the third (1976).