I am tired of sellers using Breen to hype coins...

RYK

"prohibitively rare above VF"
"prohibitively rare in XF"
"often EF to AU; Uncs are seldom choice"

Just a sample of Breen's quotes from a seller's Coin World full page add, I am tired of sellers using Breen's quotes to hype coins. Disingenuous at best, using Breen's myopic observations from forty years ago, when grading standards were far more stringent, is often laughable in the modern context. The coin described in the third quote is a 1912 Saint, for goodness sakes. You cannot swing a dead cat at even a rinky-dink coin show without hitting a half a dozen choice unc's.

Anyone using Breen quotes to sell coins should adjust them for the times as I have done the above:

"prohibitively rare above choice AU, except for the hoard just dug up from the bottom of the sea"
"prohibitively rare in unmolested MS-61"
"often MS-61 to MS-63; gems are seldom superb"

Coinosaurus

Here's the deal.....you have to catalog 100 coins and post them on the web in one day.....you have no clue what to say, so.......you quote from Breen.

I agree w/you that it's lame, but that's why it happens.

lordmarcovan

Confession time: I have used Breen to hype a coin once or twice.

But in context, like, "Breen says prohibitively rare, blahblahblah".

Barry

Don't forget Breen's writeup on your favorite dime - the 74CC:
"6-8 known to exist."

I've owned 5 of them at one time or another!

RYK

I've owned 5 of them at one time or another!

I have probably bid on five of them.

Breen's population estimates were way low for most coins for which I see him quoted, and the grades way too conservative by today's standards.

Here is an example of someone who does it right:

There are an estimated forty to fifty known with most in very low grades. It is extremely scarce in properly graded EF and very rare in AU with probably no more than seven or eight known. In Uncirculated, we know of just two pieces...

This is Doug Winter describing a coin in his inventory that I am interested in. He wrote the book on the subject (New Orleans gold) in 1992. If he were quoting Breen, his description might read "unique in AU, unknown finer." Did he use his old data from research up to 1992? Of course not. He continues to study and track the appearance and movement of these coins and offers his latest estimates.

JrGMan2004

<< <i>There are an estimated forty to fifty known with most in very low grades. It is extremely scarce in properly graded EF and very rare in AU with probably no more than seven or eight known. In Uncirculated, we know of just two pieces.. >>

Sounds like a description of the rarity of 1802 Half-Dimes...

keets

hey Robert

while you fairly criticize those who use research which is close to 20 years old, it seems you're also willing to take a swing at Breen in the light of what's currently known about some of his estimates made 20 years ago. certainly he made some "reaches" based on less than factual information, but taken as a whole his Encyclopedia stands up well today. what the hobby needs is for someone to step forward and attempt to either abridge Breen's Encyclopedia or compile what's known from all sources into a newer updated compendium of all that's Numismatic. maybe someone will even wish to do the monumental research of writing their own EncyclopediusNumismaticus. the twist is that if that's done, 20 years hence we'll be finding flaws in the estimates as more is learned.

i find the saying that "I can see beyond the horizon because I stand on the shoulders of giants" most apropos. Breen was such a giant, though he had his flaws. i choose to look at the positive aspects of his Encyclopedia rather than the flaws. as long as i use it carefully and subsidize his researech with current research i come out OK. in retrospect, i wonder how Breen would be viewed by posterity if that most disgusting thread which ran through the fabric of his life could somehow be removed.

al h.

joeyuk

I think I am more bothered by people who know
better using the populations currently listed for
varieties on the CONECA site.

RYK

Al, I agree with your criticism of my criticism of Breen, to an extent. I only took one real shot at Breen when I replaced the word "flawed" with "myopic" in my phrase "using Breen's myopic observations from forty years ago". I only meant that the dissemnination and pace of information and knowledge today is so much greater than years ago, the Breen's ability to digest all of the numismatic information is short-sighted by today's standards. At the time, it was probably state-of-the-art.

Now, if you want to take issue with me referring to an "unmolested MS-61" as a shot at Breen, I plead "no contest".

As for those who use Breen's out-dated observations to market coins when there is more contemporary and accurate information available, that's pretty lame.

Longacre

I get befuddled when I read the Breen encyclopedia because I am not sure what is accurate in it and what isn't. I always find myself asking, "is this really true?" With that said, I realize the book is 20+ years old and I understand that there has been more recent research by specialists, rather than generalists, which is far more accurate. It's the same with any profession, if you have a highly detailed, specific question, it is best to go to a specialist (such as in the medical field). Regarding sellers using the Breen book to quote from, I assume that those sellers are also generalists, and not specialists and may not know any better as to the true numbers of a certain coins out there.