The accuracy of Breen's works

Longacre

Does anyone have any comments on how accurate Breen's works are? For the most part, I believe they are fairly accurate. However, I have been reading a book by Bowers called American Coin Treasures and Hoards and in the first 30 pages, he makes several references to inaccuracies in the works by Breen. In one case, Bowers cites an arbitrary break out of the mintage of a particular gold coin between two varieties in one year. In another instance, Bowers comments that what Breen referred to as "speculation" in earlier works, somehow become "facts" or certainty in his later works when he addresses the same topic. I heard that there were inaccuracies in Breen's works, but I am not sure to what extent they are inaccurate. I also question the methods of a researcher who does not clearly indicate when his opinion is not supported by evidence. Does anyone have any thoughts?

JadeRareCoin

For one thing, we know to never use Breen's rarity assignments on almost any coin, but that's forgiveable considering the time when he performed his research. I use his opinions on rarity in a relative fashion; if he says "extremely rare", then it is probably a tougher variety. If he says "scarce", then it is probably common.

I have also learned over the years that Breen would make theories regarding certain coin mysteries and that his theories then became fact in his books. One loose example is Breen's theory on the "E" and "L" counterstamps found on 1815 and 1825/3 quarters. Breen stated that the counterstamps stood for English and Latin, and were given to students. He simply dreamt this up, yet it was accepted as fact since it was certainly plausible and it was dictated by Breen, so most people accepted it. There are many other examples where Breen's hypotheses were presented as fact by the master himself.

I use Breen's work as supplemental information and always compare it to other, more recent works. Even given Breen's reckless habit of stating facts with little supporting evidence, I believe that we are better off with his contributions to numismatics. However, authors such as Bowers are far more competent when it comes to research and writing.

pharmer

I agree with what has been said, and started my variety collecting with Breen's US Encyclopedia as my first main resource. At least he mentioned varieties, and when it became clear that the information was incomplete, or inaccurate, it compelled me to find other information sources, and that is when progress came. I still use Breen occasionally for introductory info of a topic. I imagine the monumental nature of his works explain some of the inaccuracy.

keoj

I'll comment as well. In the series that I collect (Trade Dollars), Breen did an okay job in that he at least made an attempt to deal with varieties. Two major issues:

1) His rarity assessments (date/mm in addition to varieties) are not accurate. Do your own research, it will be more accurate.

2) His variety assessments are not complete nor are they accurate. He states several varieties that (in my opinion) do not exist and others that are omitted. So......be careful when you try to look for all the Breen numbers, they might not be there.

keoj

lathmach

The problem stems from Breen doing a lot of the book from memory.
He had been the victim of a burglary where someone stole all his research papers.
He referred to that theft as being a "left handed compliment".
I use the Breen book, but I always look at other sources as well.

Ray

DMWJR

His Encyclopedia is just that . . . an encyclopedia. No on has ever put so much information in one place, and that is worthwhile in itself. The Breen Cent book, which was based on his research but only published last year, is fantastically comprehensive and accurate.

Conder101

But the Cent book also spent ten years being edited and corrected between the time Breen finished it and when it was actually pubished.

keets

it seems that Breen has been judged a bit harsher by time due to his faults. i would say that his encyclopedia is the one reference that i'd take with me above all others, it contains that much information. certainly it has been disproved in some areas and improved in some areas with a later work, but that could probably be said for most reference works on about any topic. considering that Breen gathered what was known at the time, perhaps some of his detractors could view the book in the context of 1989's known Numismatic information and not consider it in terms of 2005's known Numismatic information. oh yeah, did i mention perhaps losing the bias??

it's a good general reference with more useful information than errors, but that's just MHO.

al h.