@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.
You do realize the person made that comment 3.5 years ago?
I also find it amusing that apparently one must provide evidence to you that they own Breen's Encyclopedia and/or demonstrate special qualifications if they are going make statements. And your apparent conclusion that this person was simply referring to statements regarding rarity doesn't appear to have any basis.
@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.
You do realize the person made that comment 3.5 years ago?
I also find it amusing that apparently one must provide evidence to you that they own Breen's Encyclopedia and/or demonstrate special qualifications if they are going make statements. And your apparent conclusion that this person was simply referring to statements regarding rarity doesn't appear to have any basis.
I agree with this. I too do not understand why Breen is exalted and considered sacrosanct. If he made up a single item or made errors because of gross negligence it is enough to make you question the entire work. If I must go back and pull other materials to verify everything then what did I need Breen's book for? The burden of proof is on the person making a claim (i.e. Breen and his disciples). There is no presumption that he was correct.
@cameonut2011 said: "I agree with this. ** I too do not understand why Breen is exalted and considered sacrosanct.** If he made up a single item or made errors because of gross negligence it is enough to make you question the entire work. If I must go back and pull other materials to verify everything then what did I need Breen's book for?
How old are you?
When did you attend your first coin show.
Your answer may allow me to possibly give you a different perspective.
@Insider2 said: @cameonut2011 said: "I agree with this. ** I too do not understand why Breen is exalted and considered sacrosanct.** If he made up a single item or made errors because of gross negligence it is enough to make you question the entire work. If I must go back and pull other materials to verify everything then what did I need Breen's book for?
How old are you?
When did you attend your first coin show.
Your answer may allow me to possibly give you a different perspective.
I won't give out biographical information online on a hobby site for the world to see. There are inherent security issues with doing so. I went to my first major coin show (Baltimore) approximately 18 years ago.
WTF? so he wasn't only a serial pedophile, he was an open advocate of pederasty, helped form NAMBLA, wrote books about man-boy love, spoke at pedophile conferences, etc.
WTF? so he wasn't only a serial pedophile, he was an open advocate of pederasty, helped form NAMBLA, wrote books about man-boy love, spoke at pedophile conferences, etc.
WTF? so he wasn't only a serial pedophile, he was an open advocate of pederasty, helped form NAMBLA, wrote books about man-boy love, spoke at pedophile conferences, etc.
...and was still welcome in the coin industry
P.S. There are plenty of colorful figures that this hobby has oddly embraced with open arms. Breen was also buddies with Robert Bashlow (of confederate restrike fame), and he too shared Breen's sordid personal interests. He created the publishing firm that published Breen's pedophilia advocacy book and journal per Coinweek. Breen's mentor, William Sheldon, wasn't a pedophile but collected nude photos of college students for "psychology experiments," was anti-Semitic, considered a quack/pseudo-scientist, and was accused of stealing from the ANS.
@cameonut2011 said: "I went to my first major coin show (Baltimore) approximately 18 years ago."
That's what I needed. Around 2000 is good enough. Thanks. I attended my first show in 1960.
The only thing about us is that our perceptions are based on when we lived. I'm going to make this fast as I need to spend time on another thread. Before you were born, numismatic research was virtually nonexistent in many series. Even the science of authentication ... I'm not going to go there.
At that time, Walter Breen was considered to be (in modern terms) a walking, breathing, Google or mainframe computer. His opinion was sought out and considered to be "golden" by most folks although I'm sure there were a few exceptions.
There are some numismatists living today who could be considered the "Google's" of YOUR TIME on earth - at least in their chosen series of coins. Breen tried to cover them all. Back then, I think he succeeded for me and most of my peers.
WTF? so he wasn't only a serial pedophile, he was an open advocate of pederasty, helped form NAMBLA, wrote books about man-boy love, spoke at pedophile conferences, etc.
...and was still welcome in the coin industry
I normally would not comment on a subject such as this.
I do own a copy of the book in question and have to say that I would not trust the info contained therein...
Last, to all persons involved, do you have children?
Think about that for one minute...
~HABE FIDUCIAM IN DOMINO III V VI / III XVI~ POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
@Insider2 said:
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.
True. But there is a difference between that and simply making up "facts"
@cameonut2011 said:
I agree with this. I too do not understand why Breen is exalted and considered sacrosanct. If he made up a single item or made errors because of gross negligence it is enough to make you question the entire work. If I must go back and pull other materials to verify everything then what did I need Breen's book for? The burden of proof is on the person making a claim (i.e. Breen and his disciples). There is no presumption that he was correct.
I don't think one or two errors, even 10 or 15 or 100 in a work the size of the Encyclopedia is sufficient to question the entire work, some errors are inevitable.
In a compilation, the more entries you can verify, the more you trust the whole. The more entries that fail on verification, the less you trust the whole.
And, there is a point where the number of errors requires independent verification from primary sources for everything. Very few of his claims are referenced back to those primary sources, making this exceptionally difficult.
Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica... one is impeccably researched with primary sources, one can be edited with any fool with an idea and the "sources" are sometimes of the level of tabloid newspaper articles. Trust it at your peril...
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I don't think one or two errors, even 10 or 15 or 100 in a work the size of the Encyclopedia is sufficient to question the entire work, some errors are inevitable.
In a compilation, the more entries you can verify, the more you trust the whole. The more entries that fail on verification, the less you trust the whole.
I don’t think it’s the number of errors in the book but the way in which they were made. An honest error made from lack of real information is different from fabrication. Green suffered from both. Still, it is a VALUABLE reference but one is still responsible for confirming the information- as you should from ANY reference.
Breen short story. It was the early 1980’s at an EAC convention at the Drawbridge Hotel in Northern Kentucky. I was young and not informed about Mr Breen’s tendancies. I had a
few conversations with him during the show without any incidents. I was late for a meeting and was hurrying down the hallway to the meeting room. As I rounded the corner I nearly tripped over Breen as he was playing Jacks with a couple young ladies! What a surprise, the great Breen sitting on the floor playing Jacks. A memory I wil never forget.
Q: When does a collector become a numismatist?
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
Comments
https://coinweek.com/education/confronting-breen/
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
You do realize the person made that comment 3.5 years ago?
I also find it amusing that apparently one must provide evidence to you that they own Breen's Encyclopedia and/or demonstrate special qualifications if they are going make statements. And your apparent conclusion that this person was simply referring to statements regarding rarity doesn't appear to have any basis.
No, I did not.
Thanks for your post.
I'm very glad you are amused.
It looks like you are correct on all points.
Goodnight.
I agree with this. I too do not understand why Breen is exalted and considered sacrosanct. If he made up a single item or made errors because of gross negligence it is enough to make you question the entire work. If I must go back and pull other materials to verify everything then what did I need Breen's book for? The burden of proof is on the person making a claim (i.e. Breen and his disciples). There is no presumption that he was correct.
@cameonut2011 said: "I agree with this. ** I too do not understand why Breen is exalted and considered sacrosanct.** If he made up a single item or made errors because of gross negligence it is enough to make you question the entire work. If I must go back and pull other materials to verify everything then what did I need Breen's book for?
Your answer may allow me to possibly give you a different perspective.
I won't give out biographical information online on a hobby site for the world to see. There are inherent security issues with doing so. I went to my first major coin show (Baltimore) approximately 18 years ago.
WTF? so he wasn't only a serial pedophile, he was an open advocate of pederasty, helped form NAMBLA, wrote books about man-boy love, spoke at pedophile conferences, etc.
...and was still welcome in the coin industry
That's only the PG-13 version.
P.S. There are plenty of colorful figures that this hobby has oddly embraced with open arms. Breen was also buddies with Robert Bashlow (of confederate restrike fame), and he too shared Breen's sordid personal interests. He created the publishing firm that published Breen's pedophilia advocacy book and journal per Coinweek. Breen's mentor, William Sheldon, wasn't a pedophile but collected nude photos of college students for "psychology experiments," was anti-Semitic, considered a quack/pseudo-scientist, and was accused of stealing from the ANS.
In another thread it was intimated that Breen had a high IQ. What was his IQ?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
@cameonut2011 said: "I went to my first major coin show (Baltimore) approximately 18 years ago."
That's what I needed. Around 2000 is good enough. Thanks. I attended my first show in 1960.
The only thing about us is that our perceptions are based on when we lived. I'm going to make this fast as I need to spend time on another thread. Before you were born, numismatic research was virtually nonexistent in many series. Even the science of authentication ... I'm not going to go there.
At that time, Walter Breen was considered to be (in modern terms) a walking, breathing, Google or mainframe computer. His opinion was sought out and considered to be "golden" by most folks although I'm sure there were a few exceptions.
There are some numismatists living today who could be considered the "Google's" of YOUR TIME on earth - at least in their chosen series of coins. Breen tried to cover them all. Back then, I think he succeeded for me and most of my peers.
I normally would not comment on a subject such as this.
I do own a copy of the book in question and have to say that I would not trust the info contained therein...
Last, to all persons involved, do you have children?
Think about that for one minute...
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
True. But there is a difference between that and simply making up "facts"
I don't think one or two errors, even 10 or 15 or 100 in a work the size of the Encyclopedia is sufficient to question the entire work, some errors are inevitable.
In a compilation, the more entries you can verify, the more you trust the whole. The more entries that fail on verification, the less you trust the whole.
And, there is a point where the number of errors requires independent verification from primary sources for everything. Very few of his claims are referenced back to those primary sources, making this exceptionally difficult.
Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica... one is impeccably researched with primary sources, one can be edited with any fool with an idea and the "sources" are sometimes of the level of tabloid newspaper articles. Trust it at your peril...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I don’t think it’s the number of errors in the book but the way in which they were made. An honest error made from lack of real information is different from fabrication. Green suffered from both. Still, it is a VALUABLE reference but one is still responsible for confirming the information- as you should from ANY reference.
Breen short story. It was the early 1980’s at an EAC convention at the Drawbridge Hotel in Northern Kentucky. I was young and not informed about Mr Breen’s tendancies. I had a
few conversations with him during the show without any incidents. I was late for a meeting and was hurrying down the hallway to the meeting room. As I rounded the corner I nearly tripped over Breen as he was playing Jacks with a couple young ladies! What a surprise, the great Breen sitting on the floor playing Jacks. A memory I wil never forget.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
Wow, this old thread resuscitated?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"