I CAN POINT U TO THE PICTURE OF THE 1917 NICKEL BELOW, WITH OBV DIE CRACK, & SQUARED / BRILLIANT RIMS. (also not the doubling on the initial “F” and date that Breen had mentioned.)
Originally posted by: coindeuce His claim in the Encyclopedia that the Economite Sect Hoard of Bust Quarters with countermarks were created as scholastic awards is nothing but a bucket of hogwash. I believe that there were times of his life when he was so bored with being considered a numismatic genius that he deliberately made declarations with the intent to draw attention from challengers, for his own entertainment.
It is in fact very likely that the E and L countermarks were school awards. I have seen no better explanation.
His claim in the Encyclopedia that the Economite Sect Hoard of Bust Quarters with countermarks were created as scholastic awards is nothing but a bucket of hogwash.
I believe that there were times of his life when he was so bored with being considered a numismatic genius that he deliberately made declarations with the intent to draw attention from challengers, for his own entertainment.
It is in fact very likely that the E and L countermarks were school awards.
I have seen no better explanation.
Supposedly the coins with the E were for English and the coins with the L were for Latin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Breen also pushed the notion that Liberty on the SLQ had her bare breast covered after 1916 because of objections from "moralists." This numismatic myth persisted until Roger Burdette thoroughly debunked it in his "Renaissance of American Coinage, 1916-1921."
The "Letter" authentication is Awesome. You don't get stuff like that these days. I can understand Breen having limited grasp of extant populations of a given coin. He was Preinternet and relied on sometimes unreliable sources. His scope was limited.
Almost every die variety had a population of "one" the day it was discovered. To say at that time that it was rare was technically correct. However, populations can only increase (unless, say, some hoarder has a fire or a burglary) and rarity numbers decrease.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
With all off the knowledgeable and expert collectors and forum members that we have here we need to start a thread/page where corrections can be made to Breens' writings. This would be beneficial to us now and to future collectors. If I were collecting a particular series I would appreciate the updates and corrections. Just a thought.
Originally posted by: planonit My understanding is that Breen was quite emphatic that 1964 Franklin existed in private collection and he had a chance to examine one but was on vacation or something. It is strange story.
Seems unlikely that no one has reported seeing such a Franklin for over 50 years, but you never know.
I just have to disagree. I recognize that I live in a glass house, but some things are just over the top and what he did to kids outweighs any contribution in my mind to the hobby to the point that it should be stricken, especially when it was obvious that his lies and exaggerations bled into poor numismatic work. Breen is essentially unusable in today's numismatic world given the vast amount of inaccuracies.
The guy was a pathological liar and he used the lies for his gain, not only on his victims but on his numismatic world colleagues as well. He was a charlatan in all of his worlds...so nothing of his writing can be trusted.
Tibor is right. If Collectors who frequent these boards have specific knowledge that refutes something generally regarded as fact, to have a thread where the heresay can be "laid out there" for the experts to investigate might prove fruitful. It would be like a Kevin Flynn or Roger W. Burdette in box.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Originally posted by: coinlieutenant ...some things are just over the top and what he did to kids outweighs any contribution in my mind to the hobby to the point that it should be stricken, especially when it was obvious that his lies and exaggerations bled into poor numismatic work. Breen is essentially unusable in today's numismatic world given the vast amount of inaccuracies.
The guy was a pathological liar and he used the lies for his gain, not only on his victims but on his numismatic world colleagues as well. He was a charlatan in all of his worlds...so nothing of his writing can be trusted.
Fortunately no-one appointed you striker-in-chief. To declare Breen's Complete Encylopedia of U.S. And Colonial Coins "essentially unusable" is absurd.
LT --- stop and consider that the Encyclopedia is almost 800 pages and covered the entire realm of US coinage from Colonials to its Modern issues. if we accept that Walter Breen made stuff up and exaggerated many half-truths we also have to accept that he reported factual information that was already known, reported facts which weren't previously known and spurred further research which continues to this day. I believe that the work needs to stand on its own and not be judged by his personal flaws.
as I said earlier in the thread, should each forum member's contributions be discounted and ignored as the result of some personal transgression?? my sense is that the Hobby has already answered that and as repugnant as Breen's sins may be his Numismatic work is still respected overall by the masses.
But I'm not sure the book will ever be replicated or replaced.
The book has been replaced, in every American series, from specialist researchers and authors. The current scholarship with die varieties would not fit into any single volume.
He had credible breakthrough research in many areas including early copper, but the facts must be separated from the unfounded speculation. His opinions of Robert Scot were undocumented, baseless, and speculative, which negatively influenced Taxay and others to the point of wrongly giving engraving credit to others for work that Scot did. Fortunately, a few authors such as Newman, Julian, Bowers, Dannreuther, and a few others were more accurate about Scot, but only touched the surface of the vast amount of engraving he did for early America. I referenced hundreds of authors and researchers who had previously given meaningful and documented research in my biography of Scot, but Breen's name was not mentioned because he provided nothing of value to the history of Robert Scot.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
He claimed that there were around 8 1917 matte proof buffalo nickels struck, some with a die crack by the L in LIBERTY (see his enclopedia for more into) After searching since 1990 for one withe the die crack near the L I fouind one. It turned out to be a proof just like he said.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I just have to disagree. I recognize that I live in a glass house, but some things are just over the top and what he did to kids outweighs any contribution in my mind to the hobby to the point that it should be stricken, especially when it was obvious that his lies and exaggerations bled into poor numismatic work. Breen is essentially unusable in today's numismatic world given the vast amount of inaccuracies.
The guy was a pathological liar and he used the lies for his gain, not only on his victims but on his numismatic world colleagues as well. He was a charlatan in all of his worlds...so nothing of his writing can be trusted.
I would agree that there are many errors in Breen's Encyclopedia and Proof books I know for myself, when researching the two cent series, the errors I found pushed me towards writing a book on the series to correct the problems, and also to fully research the series. Sometimes when people make mistakes, it pushes us to correct them. IMO, even considering the errors, the Encyclopedia and proof books did open doors to ideas and perspectives not considered before, and therefore to some extent helpful. Most people who I speak to about Breen's works today take this into consideration the reliability issues on the information, but still look to see what is provided. This is a far cry from 1993, when I spoke to collectors who stated, Breen put it in writing, therefore it must be true.
I believe one of his biggest problems with these books is that he did not clearly separate fact from speculation/hearsay/rumors, I believed he merged these together in many cases as facts. He took as fact, stories such as Hallie Daggett receiving three 1894-S dimes from her father, and that her father had the coins struck for banker friends as first reported by James Johnson based upon a letter from Guy Chapman, who claimed to have spoke to Earl Parker. This story has proved to be incorrect in every part.
IMO Breen was a little arrogant, based upon the letters of authentication and other claims he made. IMO maybe part of this was created by people in the hobby. I have heard stories about how people would flock to him at shows for his opinion. If Breen believed he would be checked and disproven, I believe he might have been more careful to verify the information.
When Bowers recently did his Liberty Seated book, he consulted many experts to review, Dave stated that he did not want to be refuted if possible by others. I believe we all do this now, are more careful what we present and make sure we cover all perspectives, theories, ideas, and state clearly what is fact and what is speculation/conclusions....
I do not think there is any numismatic reference book that does not have any mistakes. I enjoy when people find something wrong in my book, why, because it may show me a perspective I had not considered. In my Clashed die book, one of the varieties I had refuted as an off-center clash based upon the evidence was proven possible by one of the collectors who discussed this after, who provided a perspective not considered, that the ends of the space between the rims was worn down near the edges, and resulted in the marks made. His overlays proved his perspective was valid. I appreciated his analysis as it taught me something new.
Obviously what he did to children was unforgivable, but I attempt to separate the two apart, his research and books as one, and what he did to kids in the other.
In writing a book that covers all series in a monumental task. I am attempting to first research and write a book on each series, and after 25 years only through half of the non-gold series. If I get them all done, will conclude with a book that replaces his book. I understand in attempting to do this all at once, how extremely difficult it would be to verify all of the information, and there might be a reason to include information you had not fully researched, so that others can see a possibility of something. I am just of the opinion that he should have clearly separated out fact/speculation/unknown/rumors and such. This is more true of his proof book IMO.
If we automatically refuted the works of deeply flawed individuals, we'd need to toss out the majority of our current scientific and scholarly literature. What Breen did is to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, but many others regarded as visionaries have done far worse, outside of the public eye. Breen's writings have enough merit and enough flaws to be judged on content alone.
Comments
(Stewart Blay showed me the 1917 Lincoln cent Breen called a proof, it still had the cert with it, I scoped it, the inside edge was artificially cut. ))
The following coin does not look messed with......
Here are photos of what looks to me like a probable/possible 1917 matte proof Lincoln cent that currently resides “across the pond”.
[URL=http://s1012.photobucket.com/user/buffnixx/media/1917 matte rev_zpsm4gjneqy.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s1012.photobucket.com/user/buffnixx/media/1917 matte obv_zpswdmskktf.jpg.html]
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I CAN POINT U TO THE PICTURE OF THE 1917 NICKEL BELOW, WITH OBV DIE CRACK,
& SQUARED / BRILLIANT RIMS. (also not the doubling on the initial “F” and date that Breen
had mentioned.)
SEE PICTURE BELOW.....
[URL=http://s1012.photobucket.com/user/buffnixx/media/s-l1600_zpsptkebadc.jpg.html]
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
His claim in the Encyclopedia that the Economite Sect Hoard of Bust Quarters with countermarks were created as scholastic awards is nothing but a bucket of hogwash.
I believe that there were times of his life when he was so bored with being considered a numismatic genius that he deliberately made declarations with the intent to draw attention from challengers, for his own entertainment.
It is in fact very likely that the E and L countermarks were school awards.
I have seen no better explanation.
His claim in the Encyclopedia that the Economite Sect Hoard of Bust Quarters with countermarks were created as scholastic awards is nothing but a bucket of hogwash.
I believe that there were times of his life when he was so bored with being considered a numismatic genius that he deliberately made declarations with the intent to draw attention from challengers, for his own entertainment.
It is in fact very likely that the E and L countermarks were school awards.
I have seen no better explanation.
Supposedly the coins with the E were for English and the coins with the L were for Latin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
about a year ago we had a guy show up at our show table with one of these. I wish the search function worked better so I could find the thread.
The "Letter" authentication is Awesome. You don't get stuff like that these days. I can understand Breen having limited grasp of extant populations of a given coin. He was Preinternet and relied on sometimes unreliable sources. His scope was limited.
Almost every die variety had a population of "one" the day it was discovered. To say at that time that it was rare was technically correct. However, populations can only increase (unless, say, some hoarder has a fire or a burglary) and rarity numbers decrease.
TD
Supposedly the coins with the E were for English and the coins with the L were for Latin.
about a year ago we had a guy show up at our show table with one of these. I wish the search function worked better so I could find the thread.
im good with the advanced.
gimme some keywords and the author, if possible. if it didnt get zapped, we'll find it.
.
that we have here we need to start a thread/page where corrections can be made
to Breens' writings. This would be beneficial to us now and to future collectors.
If I were collecting a particular series I would appreciate the updates
and corrections. Just a thought.
My understanding is that Breen was quite emphatic that 1964 Franklin existed in private collection and he had a chance to examine one but was on vacation or something. It is strange story.
Seems unlikely that no one has reported seeing such a Franklin for over 50 years, but you never know.
I just have to disagree. I recognize that I live in a glass house, but some things are just over the top and what he did to kids outweighs any contribution in my mind to the hobby to the point that it should be stricken, especially when it was obvious that his lies and exaggerations bled into poor numismatic work. Breen is essentially unusable in today's numismatic world given the vast amount of inaccuracies.
The guy was a pathological liar and he used the lies for his gain, not only on his victims but on his numismatic world colleagues as well. He was a charlatan in all of his worlds...so nothing of his writing can be trusted.
siliconvalleycoins.com
...some things are just over the top and what he did to kids outweighs any contribution in my mind to the hobby to the point that it should be stricken, especially when it was obvious that his lies and exaggerations bled into poor numismatic work. Breen is essentially unusable in today's numismatic world given the vast amount of inaccuracies.
The guy was a pathological liar and he used the lies for his gain, not only on his victims but on his numismatic world colleagues as well. He was a charlatan in all of his worlds...so nothing of his writing can be trusted.
Fortunately no-one appointed you striker-in-chief. To declare Breen's Complete Encylopedia of U.S. And Colonial Coins "essentially unusable" is absurd.
as I said earlier in the thread, should each forum member's contributions be discounted and ignored as the result of some personal transgression?? my sense is that the Hobby has already answered that and as repugnant as Breen's sins may be his Numismatic work is still respected overall by the masses.
The book has been replaced, in every American series, from specialist researchers and authors. The current scholarship with die varieties would not fit into any single volume.
He had credible breakthrough research in many areas including early copper, but the facts must be separated from the unfounded speculation. His opinions of Robert Scot were undocumented, baseless, and speculative, which negatively influenced Taxay and others to the point of wrongly giving engraving credit to others for work that Scot did. Fortunately, a few authors such as Newman, Julian, Bowers, Dannreuther, and a few others were more accurate about Scot, but only touched the surface of the vast amount of engraving he did for early America. I referenced hundreds of authors and researchers who had previously given meaningful and documented research in my biography of Scot, but Breen's name was not mentioned because he provided nothing of value to the history of Robert Scot.
(see his enclopedia for more into)
After searching since 1990 for one withe the die crack near the L I fouind one. It turned out to be a proof just like he said.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Keets,
I just have to disagree. I recognize that I live in a glass house, but some things are just over the top and what he did to kids outweighs any contribution in my mind to the hobby to the point that it should be stricken, especially when it was obvious that his lies and exaggerations bled into poor numismatic work. Breen is essentially unusable in today's numismatic world given the vast amount of inaccuracies.
The guy was a pathological liar and he used the lies for his gain, not only on his victims but on his numismatic world colleagues as well. He was a charlatan in all of his worlds...so nothing of his writing can be trusted.
+1000
I know for myself, when researching the two cent series, the errors I found pushed me towards writing a book on the series to correct the problems, and also to fully research the series. Sometimes when people make mistakes, it pushes us to correct them.
IMO, even considering the errors, the Encyclopedia and proof books did open doors to ideas and perspectives not considered before, and therefore to some extent helpful.
Most people who I speak to about Breen's works today take this into consideration the reliability issues on the information, but still look to see what is provided.
This is a far cry from 1993, when I spoke to collectors who stated, Breen put it in writing, therefore it must be true.
I believe one of his biggest problems with these books is that he did not clearly separate fact from speculation/hearsay/rumors, I believed he merged these together in many cases as facts.
He took as fact, stories such as Hallie Daggett receiving three 1894-S dimes from her father, and that her father had the coins struck for banker friends as first reported by James Johnson based upon a letter from Guy Chapman, who claimed to have spoke to Earl Parker. This story has proved to be incorrect in every part.
IMO Breen was a little arrogant, based upon the letters of authentication and other claims he made. IMO maybe part of this was created by people in the hobby. I have heard stories about how people would flock to him at shows for his opinion.
If Breen believed he would be checked and disproven, I believe he might have been more careful to verify the information.
When Bowers recently did his Liberty Seated book, he consulted many experts to review, Dave stated that he did not want to be refuted if possible by others. I believe we all do this now, are more careful what we present and make sure we cover all perspectives, theories, ideas, and state clearly what is fact and what is speculation/conclusions....
I do not think there is any numismatic reference book that does not have any mistakes.
I enjoy when people find something wrong in my book, why, because it may show me a perspective I had not considered. In my Clashed die book, one of the varieties I had refuted as an off-center clash based upon the evidence was proven possible by one of the collectors who discussed this after, who provided a perspective not considered, that the ends of the space between the rims was worn down near the edges, and resulted in the marks made. His overlays proved his perspective was valid. I appreciated his analysis as it taught me something new.
Obviously what he did to children was unforgivable, but I attempt to separate the two apart, his research and books as one, and what he did to kids in the other.
In writing a book that covers all series in a monumental task. I am attempting to first research and write a book on each series, and after 25 years only through half of the non-gold series. If I get them all done, will conclude with a book that replaces his book.
I understand in attempting to do this all at once, how extremely difficult it would be to verify all of the information, and there might be a reason to include information you had not fully researched, so that others can see a possibility of something.
I am just of the opinion that he should have clearly separated out fact/speculation/unknown/rumors and such. This is more true of his proof book IMO.
Kevin