Should the hobby make a unified effort to identify and correct Breen's research errors?

RWB

The body of numismatic knowledge was greatly enhanced by the research of Walter Breen. However, he also had an penchant for embellishment, invention and a desire to always have the “right” answer. The result is that significant portions of his work – particularly later in his career – appear to be very unreliable.

Since Breen’s research and his writings (such as the Encyclopedia) are the most referenced of any numismatist, should the hobby make a unified effort to identify and correct the problems?

(As an example, read his tale of the creation of the Peace dollar. It is filled with facts and interesting anecdotes - and almost entirely wrong.)

lsica

I'd especially like to see some alternate resources to his information on the history of early US proof coins

STONE

I would agree.

Having the right information is everything in this hobby.

DaveG

Roger,

I'm not sure the "hobby" is capable of making any sort of unified effort.

Breen was able to conduct so much research because one individual (I believe) was willing to pay him to do it. I don't know of anyone who's bankrolling such research today.

As a result, a number of individuals are working on correcting things Breen got wrong, but it's certainly not a unified effort.

(For example, Breen states that Maximilian Bonzano, Melter & Refiner of the New Orleans Mint in 1861, stayed in New Orleans after the Confederacy took control of the Mint and acted as a Union spy. Breen says that Bonzano's reports are in the National Archives. I know someone who's working on a biographical article on Bonzano who says that Bonzano went north after the Confederate takeover and didn't return to the city until after its capture by Union forces.)

RWB

Part of Breen's funding came from John Ford, other parts from attribution, writing and some coin sales (discover-pump-sell).
It would, however, take 3 or 4 people to approximate the scope and depth of what is in his corpus, and correct it. Maybe this is a long-term project for one of the large auction houses, or a well-to-do collector who wants his name on publications and discoveries.

numisma

I think that this is a great idea. It is being done right now on a much smaller scale with the new Bust Quarter book, which was last updated by Breen and filled with incorrect information.

Coinosaurus

RWB-

A completely footnoted version of Breen's Encyclopedia would be far and away the most important U.S. reference ever created.

It would have to be a divide and conquer strategy, and require years of effort from the best 10-20 researchers out there today. The cost would be enormous and not recoverable, IMHO.

If I were to head up such a project I would not rewrite Breen, but rather create a whole new reference from scratch. It's simply not worth the effort to disprove stuff that Breen thought was true (proving negatives is often impossible anyway). I would much rather see a series of books like yours which cover the entire corpus of the subject.

Longacre

I think it is a great idea. As for who would pay the researchers, that is another story. Maybe Heritage could put 4-5 people on the payroll for a few years and it can get done. Heritage took in around $500 MM last year in revenues. Maybe it would be able to afford it.

ziggy29

<< <i>If I were to head up such a project I would not rewrite Breen, but rather create a whole new reference from scratch. It's simply not worth the effort to disprove stuff that Breen thought was true (proving negatives is often impossible anyway). I would much rather see a series of books like yours which cover the entire corpus of the subject. >>

Not just that, but it's also the only way to remove the "taint" of his personal life from the reference work. Some numismatists reject all of his work on the basis of his personal failings and felonious activities away from the coin field, and by redoing the whole thing that stigma would be removed.

PhillyJoe

<< <i>I think it is a great idea. As for who would pay the researchers, that is another story. Maybe Heritage could put 4-5 people on the payroll for a few years and it can get done. Heritage took in around $500 MM last year in revenues. Maybe it would be able to afford it. >>



Where would we find such a person? Someone who might be in a dead-end job, enjoy coins and work cheap?

Joe C.
Independent Researcher For Hire
U.S. National Archives & Records
www.archives.gov

ziggy29

<< <i>Where would we find such a person? Someone who might be in a dead-end job, enjoy coins and work cheap? >>

In about 5-10 years, I'll probably be in the position to do such a thing, as long as all my expenses were paid.

RWB

Interesting suggestions. You're probably correct that it would be best to start from the beginning rather than try to "correct" Breen.

[As an aside, the depth of information that is available may overwhelm any such organized project. I used Taxay as a very rough guide for the 1905-1921 Renaissance period – his US Mint and Coinage devotes 50 pages to the same period that has taken me 900+ pages.]

Coxe

It really is only a matter of organization. The revisions are coming fast and in every area. There are so many specialists and excellent communications now that there really is no major hurdles in accumulating the truth for revisions. Someone with a decent overview and an understanding of who should be the delegates responsible for certain series, etc would get it going. Maybe Fivaz or someone like that?

Coinosaurus

You are forgetting that little to none of the archival material is in digital format. There is no easy way to dig it out except to spend very large amounts of time in the Nat. Archives and other archival stores. It is true that researchers are much more connected than in the past but there is still a huge roadblock at the gate of the knowledge repository.

If you had Bill Gates' money, probably the best thing to do would be to call up the Nat. Archives director and offer them an obscene amount of money to digitize all records related to the mint. Since I'm sure they have no procedure in place for such a thing, and large amounts of bureaucracy preventing such a thing from happening, you would have to offer them literally billions of dollars, so much money that there would be a taxpayer revolt if they DIDN'T take the money. (And if you think this is bad, try doing the same thing in a foreign country, where certain American numismatic research content also exists.)

As it is, there are only about a dozen numismatic researchers in the whole country that have a decent feel for what's in the Archives and what isn't. The only way they've gotten to that point is to spend large amounts of personal time calling for documents and getting junk back, then repeating the process ad nauseum until they find that one piece of information that no one has ever processed before.

RWB has made an awesome contribution here. Now we just need a whole team of people to duplicate his work in other areas

Coxe

Sure, there are things to be added from the archives. That is an ongoing effort for numismatics. However, we do have fairly authoritative specialists who can easily update Breen's assessments using what is even common knowledge to specialists but not collected in a single source. Even a current ANACS pop report would refute many of Breen's rarity assessments.

He did a great job not only in documenting the entire US coin catalogue but in inspiring many later numismatists and variety enthusiasts. A cherrypicker's guide is very nice but something more comprehensive would be quite welcome. At this point, we might very well be best served with it entirely in digital form. Otherwise, we are looking at a multivolume bound encyclopaedia. After all, the Morgan dollars catalogued by Van Allen itself has grown to Breen's book's proportions. Varieties are a big part of the future of numismatic research and we are really still only in its infancy. I can see a time when we will be differentiating hubs and dies with far greater precision and will be more systematic in determining die states, perhaps to the point of pinpointing where in a production a specimen was likely struck by slight differences in die erosion. For now though, there is a gaping hole between Breen's outdated work and the abridged and primarily value-motivated cherrypicker's guide.

michael

Since Breen’s research and his writings (such as the Encyclopedia) are the most referenced of any numismatist, should the hobby make a unified effort to identify and correct the problems for pre 1915 coinage??


YES!!

Julian

I would endorse the idea.

Now comes the problem of finding an editor or someone to receive all of the information.

Funding can probably be found.

RWB

Maybe it would take multiple editors - each a specialist on some topic such as 20th century gold, branch mint gold, seated halves, seated dimes, fugio cents, etc.... All could work to the same templates and project design, and with an established publisher on board willing to print and market 10,000 copies of a multi-volume print/CD-ROM/DVD work costing $150+..... As a "stanbdard reference" it would likely be on the ALA referece purchase list, so that's several thousand copies....

Interesting ideas.

flaminio

I think an "Annotated Breen's" could be the most significant book ever published on US numismatics. But I'm not sure I'll see it in my lifetime...