Does Q. David Bowers have an issue with Walter Breen?

Longacre

I have been reading American Coin Treasures and Hoards by Q. David Bowers. I got through about 160 pages, and at least 50+ times in those pages QDB makes a reference to Walter Breen's research and how it is not supported by facts. I am sure it is nothing personal. Rather, it is probably a conscienceous researcher (QBD) pointing out that another's research (Breen) is somewhat faulty. I am a big QDB fan, so I am not knocking him. I was wondering if anyone else noticed the inordinate amount of times that QDB corrects or otherwise highlights Breen's miscues.

KentuckyJ

Might it have something to do with the number of times Breen said something not supported by any facts?

KJ

fivecents

Does Q. David Bowers have an issue with Walter Breen?
If he does , then he better get in line. Lots of peolpe have issues with Breen.
Breen was a Scumbag.

Keyrock

Bowers stirkes me as a guy who does tremendous research and can support his statements with facts and physical documentations. From what I've read of Breen's work he can speculate on the data and it is not supported. I always thought Breen took the easy way out and created a answer instead of digging deeper.

Just my 2 cents - Rich

mrfred

There has been other discussion on this board about Breen.

MFH

I also read QDB's column and books and each time his opinions are backed up with accurate facts. Unlike Breen who drew his own conclusions based on a smattering of facts. Still his encyclopedias have a wealth of knowledge contained within them, its too bad some of its erroneous.

I can't blame QDB for taking exception with WB's findings.

Fivecents: you couldn't be more correct in your assesment of WB. Pedophiles are not welcome in any community.

griffin6

There is a theory that Walter Breen knew 90% of everything there is to know about numismatics. The problem stemmed from the fact that Walter's ego was even greater than his knowledge. If confronted with a question that involved the 10%, he felt compelled to answer anyway, and did so with full confidence and without caveat. As a result, his brilliance was tempered by the fact that you couldn't KNOW if he was stating fact or just hypothesizing.