Walter Breen's accuracy

grayroads

The suggestion has been made on this message board and other numismatic forums that the information provided by Walter Breen in sources like his Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins is not always accurate. Your reactions/responses would be most helpful. TextText

savoyspecial

The story about someone throwing a 1933 into the ocean to avoid confiscation

The story about a 1964 Franklin Half existing

these two came to mind right away......And then there's calling stuff 'rare' and 'scarce' that really wasn't

But as an entire work, I find myself referring to it quite a bit

ProofArtworkonCircs

So far everybody admits that it is sometimes accurate. Now, how do we tell the difference?

DaveG

My own opinion is that the "objective" material, like the varieties he identified, is pretty much correct.

The "subjective" material, like the rarity estimates and the narrative, need to be verified.

For example, in the material on the Civil War events for the New Orleans Mint, Breen reports that Maximilian Bonzano (melter and refiner of the NO Mint at the time) was a northern "spy" at the Mint following its takeover by the State of Louisiana

In fact, Dr. Bonzano, who was pro-Union, served the US Government, the State of Louisiana and the Confederacy as melter and refiner. When the Mint was closed at the end of May 1861, Dr. Bonzano left New Orleans for New York. He returned to New Orleans in June 1862, as Special Agent of the US Treasury in charge of the Mint. Breen mentions that Dr. Bonzano's reports to the Treasury Department are available in the National Archives, but he mis-reported the circumstances under which they were made.

Dr. Bonzano described his actions in the 1887 Mint Annual Report, so Breen should have known the correct information - why, then, did he choose to characterize Dr. Bonzano as a "spy"?

Coinosaurus

There is plenty to criticize in Breen, but it is still a monster work and quite often the first thing I look at for a lot of questions. If you use it enough you do get a feel for what is potential BS and what isn't. Generally I trust the facts and discount what I consider to be editorial opinions. He does give a lot of sources, so frequently (but not always) one can verify with another reference. He has a strong grasp on the overarching sweep of American coinage, but for things like die varieties I would check with the specialists first and not even pay much attention to Breen.

savoyspecial

>>... why, then, did he choose to characterize Dr. Bonzano as a "spy"? >>


DaveG, I think Breen left a few 'red herrings' so he could see if anyone copied his work

MisterSmithGuesser

<< <i>And then there's calling stuff 'rare' and 'scarce' that really wasn't >>



I can't speak for 99% of the coins Breen mentions. But I can say for sure that there are a few inaccurates in the book about Roosevelt dimes.

There are two Obverse Design Varieties (ODV) on the 1946 Roosevelt dime. Breen calls the ODV-001 variety on the 1946-D and 1946-S dimes “presently vary scarce.” However, from my personal experience, I find that ODV-001 is actually quite easy to find on all mints of the 1946 Roosevelt dime. And to conflict with Breen directly, I've actually found that ODV-002 on the 1946-S dime is the hardest of the 1946 Roosevelt ODVs to come by.

koynekwest

Much of his info on doubled dies might be in error (but I'm sure he knew lots more about them at the time than I did) but it was a pioneering work in that field and worthy of commendation, as is the entire book. It was the thing that really got me going with the cherrypicking on a serious and frenzied manner.

cmerlo1

I have a dealer friend who says a coin is worth less if it has a Breen letter accompanying it.

Ronyahski

What Coinosauraus said, with one exception. Although his die variety work is not perfect, and some of what he wrote was from memory or little scraps of paper, in its time it was the best published. In my research I still go back to Breen's work and try to prove him either right or wrong.

This same question came up in a post years ago, (sorry, and please someone tell me how to link a post), and in that post was a response from Pistareen about Breen. One of the most interesting reads ever on these boards, thus why I even recalled it from so long ago. Here it is:

<< I have never heard people who knew Walter to say he "made things up". >>



I knew Walter Breen. Since his death, I think I've studied his life and his work as much as anyone around.

He made things up.

Walter's book is an enormous feat. Unlike most researchers, his curiosity about American coinage knew no bounds -- he was just as excited by doubled dies on Shield nickels as he was about rare Connecticut coppers, and his knowledge of both ranked among the finest of his contemporaries.

Because of his catholic (small C) interest in American numismatics, he was shown EVERYTHING over the period from the early 1950s to the early 1990s when he met his demise. He had a chance to see most of the best collections, and any new discovery at a coin show was raced to him first for his blessing. And he was at most of them. His copy of the Encyclopedia was so scrawled full of notes as to be almost unintelligible, but it was where he preserved all of his written observations for his long-hoped-for second edition.

Walter was not always so good about keeping notes. Walter often claimed notes were stolen, missappropriated, borrowed and never returned by his enemies, destroyed in a flood, taken by landlords, etc. Walter was disorganized, and though he had enemies I'd bet many of them were just lost over the years (though at least one major theft did occur). He had gained a reputation early in his career for his photographic memory. I've heard friends of his tell stories about opening a phone book, giving it to Walter for 10 minutes, and then asking the 14th number down on the left side. He'd comply and give you the number above it and the one below too! I tend to believe these stories, as genius and memory capacity like this does exist. However, his early feats of incredible memory gave way to decades of drug use and mental decline. I'm 30 and my memory is not what it was when I was 15 (it was then semi-photographic, which came in handy in school). Walter continued to depend upon his youthful memory long after he had lost that remarkable talent. Maybe he didn't know he had lost it. Maybe he was too proud to admit it.

So he made things up, and he made errors and promulgated them as fact. As the most knowledgeable numismatist of his day for decades, people trusted him. As a self-proclaimed genius and MENSA member, a man who once was studied for incredible mental powers alongside Uri Gellar, everyone believed that he could really remember all this stuff off the top of his head. But he couldn't. His recollections of the content of the Eliasberg Collection ended up blending with his memory of what was in Norweb and what was in Garrett. He occasionally reported getting special knowledge in visions -- something most historians frown upon.

Walter's best work was done in the 1950s and early 1960s, which was when nearly all the research upon which his later books were founded was actually conducted. He read and corresponded for two years from a VA hospital bed in Massachusetts for nearly every waking moment. He was "discovered" in the early 1950s and turned loose on the National Archives, on the Chase Manhattan Money Museum collection, on the Smithsonian collection, and on the libraries of Stack's and New Netherlands in New York. He was young, engaged, hungry (literally), and doing work that NO ONE had ever done before. RWB may have had an experience I had in the National Archives once, finding pencil scrawled notes from this early era in breen's hand written in the margins of original documents -- I located these marginalia in Salmon P. Chase's letterbook, for instance.

Then the 60s happened. And for Walter, they really happened. He was living in the Village in the early 60s, then moved to Berkley, then returned to NYC in the late 60s when the Bay Area "scene" became too crowded. He spent time with the countercultural greats of the time (a few of who I've corresponded with about Walter, such as the critic Paul Krassner). His partner and friend Bob Bashlow, also a numismatist, co-authored "1001 Ways to Beat the Draft" with the lead singer of The Fugs. From Ken Kesey to Jerry Garcia to Joan Baez, Walter rubbed elbows with them all. I'm guessing that social scene did not help his memory or his numismatic skills.

Nonetheless, he relied on them, despite getting decades distant from his best original research. Most of Walter's later books read like whisper-down-the-lane versions of his early work. A scrap of evidence and a thought became a paper trail with proof. This was the nature of Walter's prevarications -- not maliciious lies, but certainly academic negligence.

So what to do with Walter's work? It is tempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My dad used to say "at least you know what a thief is, but you can never trust a liar." When an historian's ability to sort proveable fact from other stuff is questioned, he is usually consigned to the academic scrap heap -- sad, but so it goes.

I disagree with the contention that 0.1% of WB's work is false in the Encyclopedia -- count the number of varieties called "very rare" that were not then and are not now. Read the chapter intros with footnotes to Taxay and nothing else -- Walter claimed he mostly ghost wrote the Taxay book, and it's bad form to cite yourself with no other footnotes. I'm sure I could cite specific examples (the story about the Washington Roman Head comes to mind), but this is being written on a long train ride away from my library. Y'all are stuck since I have nothing better to do.

Further, late in his life, Walter let his poor financial status affect his integrity as an expert. And he lied about non-numismatic facts. He was not the Lindbergh Baby. He widely published that he graduated Hopkins in 18 months. While true, he never mentioned the 2 years he spent at Georgetown before that! When Walter joined the ANA, his address was a dorm at G-town.

Walter had difficulty separating fact from fantasy throughout his life. His research was brilliant, but once a researcher loses the ability to properly assay the truth value of what he writes or reads , it taints every word he's written -- even if 90% of his work is flawless and state of the art.

Sorry for the longest post every made! There are some things, though, that can't really go into a Coin World column.

coindeuce

I've always chuckled at Breen's characterization, or shall I state attribution for the counterstamped 1815 and 1825 Capped Bust quarters. I am certain that this was one of his attempts at levity. No intelligent numismatist, including Walter would ever sanely believe that a quarter dollar would have been a rational academic reward from the supposed contemporary time of their use.

Athena

<< <i> "at least you know what a thief is, but you can never trust a liar." >>



That's my assessment.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>(sorry, and please someone tell me how to link a post) >>


1) Surf to the post, then highlight and copy (ctrl-C) the URL from the address bar

2) Once in "reply" mode, click the "http" icon above the text window

3) Paste (ctrl-V) the URL and click "OK"

4) Type a short description of what the link points to and click "OK"

Shamika

Ronyahski - Thanks for posting your opinion about Breen. It was well written and insightful.

mommam17

I was told by someone that knew him, if you bought him a bottle, he would write you a letter about a coin. The person also told me, they didn't know about his problem with kids.

PerryHall

<< <i>I was told by someone that knew him, if you bought him a bottle, he would write you a letter about a coin. The person also told me, they didn't know about his problem with kids. >>



I read that his pedophilia was well known in numismatic circles and the ANA would actually have members follow him around at ANA sponsored coin shows to keep an eye on him.

astrorat

@Ronyahski - Nice post and thank you for sticking with Breen's numismatics. There are some excellent researchers out there today, such as RWB and JD and then others who claim "comprehensiveness" and deliver little more than fast-buck drivel. You echo what others whom I respect state about Breen's work ... before 1970 it was grand, afterwords not so much. So much of what he published early on was "remarkable" simply because nobody had done it before. Essentially it was what any good researcher could have done given the time and financial resources. Breen's early work wasn't intuitive or magical, it was just some of the first work supported by archive material. I also found his distain for authority and, sometimes less than subtle, sarcasm amusing.

MisterSmithGuesser

Here's a photo of Breen that I've never seen anywhere online:


From Coins magazine, March 1980

ebaybuyer

walter breen was a pedophile. no matter what contributions he made to numismatics or anything else, nothing will ever overshadow the fact that he enjoyed sexual acts with children, what a legacy

ProofArtworkonCircs

Walter told me that he remembered well items he had read on coins from his youth.
However he had no idea what the source was nor how accurate the items were since back then he didn't know enough then to question them.

AngryTurtle

<< <i>.... Read the chapter intros with footnotes to Taxay and nothing else -- Walter claimed he mostly ghost wrote the Taxay book, and it's bad form to cite yourself with no other footnotes. I'm sure I could cite specific examples (the story about the Washington Roman Head comes to mind), but this is being written on a long train ride away from my library. Y'all are stuck since I have nothing better to do. >>



A very informative post for one who entered into COins after Walter had passed from the scene.

All right, but now I am dying to know the Washington Roman Head story!

forthill

I once asked Walter if he would look at a coin for me and he replied, "I'll look at anything once.".
Glad it was just a coin I was showing.

BillJones

It is very fashionable to beat up on Walter Breen these days. Some of his work was marred by the stuff he made up. Some of the inaccuracies about the rarity of certain items were due the nature of pioneering research. If you find something new, it is hard to know how rare it is at first. After you have described it, and perhaps called it rare, others look for it. The results can either prove or disprove your initial rarity claims. An any I would label any complaint in that regard is "a bad rap."

Breen also diminished his reputation when he handed out "letters of authenticity" that were inaccurate and sometimes perhaps driven by monetary gain. And yes, he did make things up on occasion.

At the same time, Breen was writing in a lucid style at a time in the 1950s and '60s when there was very little good numismatic literature available. Many of the people who had extensive knowledge would not share it, often for selfish reasons. Breen wrote a lot of books and articles that I found enjoyable and informative when I was young collector in my teens. For that I will always be thankful to him, and I could never issue a blanket condemnation of his life because of that.

Yes, his personal life ranged from a mess to reprehensible. There is no denying that. But failing to look at his accomplishments in total is not a fair representation of who he was.

And yes, the Breen Encyclopedia, with all of its flaws, is still a monumental work. Modern writers can criticize it all they want, but they are yet to produce something of that scope. In fact none of them have even tried.

SaorAlba

<< <i>Here's a photo of Breen that I've never seen anywhere online:


From Coins magazine, March 1980 >>



He had a column in the magazine called "Bristles and Barbs" and that was the photograph they used.

There are a few of us here who actually knew him. He used to attend my coin club occasionally and gave speeches, I remember his rants about Catholic priests(he had a lot in common with them apparently) and organized religion in general. He was a brilliant person, but like many brilliant people he had flaws.

Dentuck

One note of clarification: I believe Ronyahski was actually extracting
from the writing of Pistareen (John Kraljevich). He cites Pistareen in
his post.

astrorat

<< <i>One note of clarification: I believe Ronyahski was actually extracting
from the writing of Pistareen (John Kraljevich). He cites Pistareen in
his post. >>

That makes sense as John knew Breen well and is well versed in discussing his numismatic knowledge.

MisterSmithGuesser

<< <i>He had a column in the magazine called "Bristles and Barbs" and that was the photograph they used.

There are a few of us here who actually knew him. He used to attend my coin club occasionally and gave speeches, I remember his rants about Catholic priests(he had a lot in common with them apparently) and organized religion in general. He was a brilliant person, but like many brilliant people he had flaws. >>



Yup. That was where I scanned that photo from:



As BillJones mentioned:



<< <i>It is very fashionable to beat up on Walter Breen these days. >>



However, it seems that other heralded numismatists get a pass on what they did in their personal lives or promoted in their professional studies. William H. Sheldon, for example, was known as a racist and anti-Semite who created the field of constitutional psychology. This theory proposed a correlation between body types and a person's intelligence, moral worth, and future achievement. The framework for his constitutional psychology was the belief and practice of eugenics, which advocated the improvement of the human being through the promotion of human reproduction with traits deemed "desirable" and the reduction of human reproduction with traits deemed "undesirable". You may have heard of another fellow who advocated the same thing during WWII: Adolf Hitler. Nevertheless, Sheldon's coin grading scale has become the numismatic standard and no one ever mentions his racist or anti-Semitic beliefs or his promotion of constitutional psychology.

epcjimi1

<< <i>I once asked Walter if he would look at a coin for me and he replied, "I'll look at anything once.".
Glad it was just a coin I was showing. >>



forthill
New Member

Posts: 17
Joined: Mar 2001

Wow for the post count, that's about 1.1 posts per year.

astrorat

<< <i>The framework for his constitutional psychology was the belief and practice of eugenics, which advocated the improvement of the human being through the promotion of human reproduction with traits deemed "desirable" and the reduction of human reproduction with traits deemed "undesirable". You may have heard of another fellow who advocated the same thing during WWII: Adolf Hitler. >>

And you may have even heard of a country whose government advocated the same thing: the United States.

MisterSmithGuesser

<< <i>

<< <i>The framework for his constitutional psychology was the belief and practice of eugenics, which advocated the improvement of the human being through the promotion of human reproduction with traits deemed "desirable" and the reduction of human reproduction with traits deemed "undesirable". You may have heard of another fellow who advocated the same thing during WWII: Adolf Hitler. >>

And you may have even heard of a country whose government advocated the same thing: the United States. >>



You're right. They absolutely did. There was forced sterilization in this country into the early 1980s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics (although renamed) existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization taking place in 1981. That part of history is frequently swept under the rug.

EDITED TO ADD: I wasn't trying to compare pedophilia to eugenics. But wrong is wrong is wrong.

Shamika

<< <i>There are a few of us here who actually knew him. He used to attend my coin club occasionally and gave speeches, I remember his rants about Catholic priests (he had a lot in common with them apparently)... >>


Okay, that made me laugh. And before anyone gets up in arms, I was an alter boy for seven years.

Shamika

<< <i>However, it seems that other heralded numismatists get a pass on what they did in their personal lives or promoted in their professional studies. William H. Sheldon, for example, was known as a racist and anti-Semite who created the field of constitutional psychology. >>



Let's not forget he was also a thief. But we still appreciate his work on early American Cents.

ProofArtworkonCircs

<<<< The framework for his constitutional psychology was the belief and practice of eugenics, which advocated the improvement of the human being through the promotion of human reproduction with traits deemed "desirable" and the reduction of human reproduction with traits deemed "undesirable". You may have heard of another fellow who advocated the same thing during WWII: Adolf Hitler. >>

And you may have even heard of a country whose government advocated the same thing: the United States. >>>>


I think there were also other countries that took this route.

shorecoll

One funny thing with the accuracy situation is that, in my opinion, Breen would speculate on topics based on the breadth of material that he had seen. After he did this, other people would do research and disprove these speculative theories (which Breen did state as facts). Some of Breen's loudest critics do exactly the same thing. Will people decry these people with the same level of scorn as Breen? I doubt it (for obvious and non-obvious reasons). The sheer volume of material in the Encyclopedia is staggering, it is literally impossible for it all to be correct.

yosclimber

<< <i>One note of clarification: I believe Ronyahski was actually extracting
from the writing of Pistareen (John Kraljevich). He cites Pistareen in
his post. >>


Here is a link to Pistareen's original post in 2007:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=619564&STARTPAGE=2
(thread title: "How Reliable is Walter Breen's info?" a common discussion topic in this forum)

coppercoins

Regardless of Breen and his personal life, I still marvel at the eccentric and down right crazy amount of work he did for this hobby, and I respect him for that. The double edged sword of these two very different parts of the man can often cloud one's judgment of one for the other. It's easy for me to remove myself completely from his failures as a person and look ONLY at the body of work, since I am a social hermit of sorts and frankly look more at the work a person does than at the person and who they are or what else they've done. My functioning autism and Aspbergers help with that separation, and I am aware that many cannot so cleanly separate a person from their work. A contextual comparison can be drawn in the fact that I often know actors for the work they have done, but know nothing at all of their personal lives - where they are from, who they married, what crimes they have committed. I know them only for the films in which they have acted and the characters they played.

That having been said, I still think Breen was one of the single most comprehensive students of numismatics even with his many faults as described above. I know only Lincoln cents so deeply as to challenge anything he ever wrote, and in that facet of the hobby have found many errors and omissions in his listings according to today's standard and what we know today regarding the minting process and the coins minted. I cannot speak for whether he simply made up some of the incorrect cent listings, or if he received incorrect information from his sources. What I can say is that even with its inaccuracies and faults, Breen's work in the series (Lincoln cents) alone is a fascinating read in numismatic history. I would not, however, use his guide as factual without more recent sources as back-up. Many people have done a healthy amount of updating general knowledge in the series, and Breen's work is correctly viewed (in Lincoln cents) as largely outdated.

coppercoins

<< <i>

<< <i>One note of clarification: I believe Ronyahski was actually extracting
from the writing of Pistareen (John Kraljevich). He cites Pistareen in
his post. >>


Here is a link to Pistareen's original post in 2007:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=619564&STARTPAGE=2
(thread title: "How Reliable is Walter Breen's info?" a common discussion topic in this forum) >>



I unfortunately get nothing using your link. (?)

bronco2078

<< <i>

<< <i>I once asked Walter if he would look at a coin for me and he replied, "I'll look at anything once.".
Glad it was just a coin I was showing. >>



forthill
New Member

Posts: 17
Joined: Mar 2001

Wow for the post count, that's about 1.1 posts per year. >>




The anti-glicker of the forum

telephoto1

<< <i>It is very fashionable to beat up on Walter Breen these days. Some of his work was marred by the stuff he made up. Some of the inaccuracies about the rarity of certain items were due the nature of pioneering research. If you find something new, it is hard to know how rare it is at first. After you have described it, and perhaps called it rare, others look for it. The results can either prove or disprove your initial rarity claims. An any I would label any complaint in that regard is "a bad rap."

Breen also diminished his reputation when he handed out "letters of authenticity" that were inaccurate and sometimes perhaps driven by monetary gain. And yes, he did make things up on occasion.

At the same time, Breen was writing in a lucid style at a time in the 1950s and '60s when there was very little good numismatic literature available. Many of the people who had extensive knowledge would not share it, often for selfish reasons. Breen wrote a lot of books and articles that I found enjoyable and informative when I was young collector in my teens. For that I will always be thankful to him, and I could never issue a blanket condemnation of his life because of that.

Yes, his personal life ranged from a mess to reprehensible. There is no denying that. But failing to look at his accomplishments in total is not a fair representation of who he was.

And yes, the Breen Encyclopedia, with all of its flaws, is still a monumental work. Modern writers can criticize it all they want, but they are yet to produce something of that scope. In fact none of them have even tried. >>



Hard to improve upon the above post. Well said.

I only saw Breen a handful of times, interacting/conversing with him at shows occasionally. I respect his body of numismatic work and immense knowledge... but not WB as a human being.

Barberian

<< <i>walter breen was a pedophile. no matter what contributions he made to numismatics or anything else, nothing will ever overshadow the fact that he enjoyed sexual acts with children, what a legacy >>



Oh come on! He probably helped a lot of members here finish their Indian Head Cent collections as YN's back in the day, and for that they are grateful.

Dave99B

I've owned his encyclopedia for about 20 years...what an awesome resource. I feel like some of his survival estimates are a bit sketchy, but he has more ground to stand on them me.

I met him once, although just briefly; 'eccentric' does not go far enough. Wow, he was out there, to say the least....such a shame how it all ended up. Sad that such a great contributor to numismatics could also do such terrible damage.

Dave

Nysoto

<< <i>The suggestion has been made on this message board and other numismatic forums that the information provided by Walter Breen in sources like his Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins is not always accurate. >>


To respond to the OP statement, we are fortunate to have specialists that have researched, published, and improved upon virtually all areas of US numismatics that Breen covered. If a person wants accuracy in their collecting interests, go to the specialist books.

jom

When I think of Walter Breen I think of a saying (not sure from who): "Trust the art, not the artist"

jom

BUFFNIXX

ricko

@BUFFNIXX....Where did you find that little treasure?? I visit book shops looking for items such as that, and other old, rare numismatic literature. Rarely successful though...Cheers, RickO

Justacommeman

I miss JK

m

Rittenhouse

@coppercoins said:
<< <i>

<< <i>One note of clarification: I believe Ronyahski was actually extracting
from the writing of Pistareen (John Kraljevich). He cites Pistareen in
his post. >>

Here is a link to Pistareen's original post in 2007:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=619564&STARTPAGE=2
(thread title: "How Reliable is Walter Breen's info?" a common discussion topic in this forum) >>

JK's comments are spot on. He and I knew Breen in the early to late 1980's. John certainly has studied Walter's life more than anyone I know.

I've only studied his writings, particularly those on the early mint, large cents and half cents. Limiting my comments to those areas, while his early writings from the 1950's through the early 60's are remarkably accurate, especially for the time, the problem with his later writings is that he would often jump to the most absurd conclusions or simply make something up.

JJF once said that Walter would often write what he thought and set about finding the proof later. At dinner, I corrected that to Walter would often write what he thought and rarely set about finding the proof later because there was none. I got a dirty look.

I did the technical editing on his large cent book for Bowers and corrected many misstatements, fabrications, and errors. Even so, the project was so short-fused I missed a helluva lot and my copy was loaded with sticky notes of numerous items I found later. One particular one that still sticks in my mind to this day is Walter's use of the word "lenticular" for certain defective planchets. The book was littered with the term. I'm not sure we got them all.

Anyway, I kept looking at coins and reading his narrative wondering what in the hell he was talking about until I finally hit one sentence, well buried, were he said it meant "cupped" or concavo-convex. He was trying to described planchets distorted in punching. Unfortunately, lenticular DOES NOT mean cupped, it means double-convex. He had fallen in love with the sound of the word and hadn't bothered to see if it meant what he thought it did. That was not unusual for Walter. He'd get something in his head and you couldn't blast it out with dynamite.

He also thought the design changes, both major and slight, indicating striking order. I don't think he understood that dies were created in advance and that the Chief Coiner pulled dies from the die locker as needed, or that dies were returned, reworked, and placed back in the locker with newer dies. He certainly did not understand the use of die stating to establish emission sequence.

He often relied on his supposed photographic memory to quote mint records he had read and claimed to have read. We do know he did a lot of work in the archives. In fact, he actually made notes on several documents!!! But, he misremembered much or most of what he read, often misquoting or misattributing a writing to the wrong person. I would not trust any quotation in his books unless you have independent confirmation.

And that is the real problem with Walter's works. For the average collector they are pretty much useless from a historical basis. Unless you read the original source documents or someone reliable quotes them, you simply cannot determine which might be right and which might be wrong.

keets

Walter Breen is a justifiably much maligned individual for personal reasons and that has unfortunately the same reaction to his Encyclopedia. if you consider the scope and depth of the book it is understandable that it has errors. also, a lot has been found/researched/revealed to refute some things in the book.

that doesn't excuse some things which he apparently just "made up" and included in the book via artistic license.

all that taken as a whole the book is quite good. I don't refer to it as often as I used to but there was a time when I took it to every show I attended. I have a working copy and a new, shrink-wrapped copy in safe storage. at the end of the day I think the worst I can say about the book is that the binding sucks. the best I can say is that it has made me a lot of money.

thank you, Mr. Breen.

Crypto

Considering much of the hobby is built upon what he compiled. He took a shot and put something down and people took it from there. Most people talk them selves out of ever taking a shot.

His work and personality were both deeply influenced by his idiosyncrasies, deviance and narcissism. Those show throughout everything he ever did.

Insider2

@Athena said:
<< <i> "at least you know what a thief is, but you can never trust a liar." >>

That's my assessment.

What are your qualifications to make this assessment? How long have you been a collector? Are you a dealer? Do you specialize in a series? Do you own Breen's Encyclopedia? What is the date and denomination of the last coin on page #311 of that book?

If a person makes a statement they think is true based on the knowledge at the time it does not make them a liar when that statement is corrected.

Example: Based on my experience ANY comments about the rarity of a coin often changes over time.

Klif50

I met Mr. Breen in the late 70s when I was working at Coins of Laurel in Laurel, Maryland. He had stopped in, at the request of the owner to look over some coins we had picked up from a major collection. One of particular interest to us was, I believe, an 1895-s Morgan Dollar that we believed was a branch mint proof. He looked it over and then asked to take it for further study and we paid him $500 for his opinion on the coin. At the time another dealer was in the shop and they both went to the back room and came out shortly afterwards sniffing with red eyes and runny noses. The dealer was known for being a heavy cocaine user but I have no idea if that was what they did.

We received a registered letter about 10 days later from Mr. Breen with the coin and a very short note stating "proof like business strike" with no grade mentioned and no explanation. Anyway, took the wind out of our sails at the time. The coin still sold for some major money.

All in all, he was scruffy, smelled bad but talked the talk very well. He was extremely knowledgeable about the things he looked at and I was impressed by his knowledge and willingness to share it freely (unlike his opinions, which cost money).

During the heyday of rapidly rising coin prices and bullion there was a lot of money being made and a lot of dealers and major collectors that were doing a lot of illegal things from heavy drug use to dealing in stolen collections to wild parties in the shops after the doors were closed for the night. Big money does strange things to good people. I'm not saying that big money led Mr. Breen to his eventual brush with the law but you can't disregard what he knew and what he gave to the hobby.