Great commentary about Walter Breen in ANR's Focus on People
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
Attached below is an article that appears on ANR's "Focus on People" on their website (written by QDB). This article is very interesting, because, I, for one, never know whether what I read in the Breen encyclopedia is accurate or not. I tend to always question everything I read in that book, and becuase of that, I don't find it useful all of the time. Does anyone have comments on this article?
Some Notes on Walter Breen
Recently, while thinking about what to write for the “Focus on People” feature, Dennis Tucker, who holds the title of publisher at Whitman Publishing Company, called my attention to a writer in the current issue of COINage, who was crediting me and several others with saying that on the Standing Liberty quarter of 1916, Miss Liberty was found to be immodestly dressed, and due to public outcry, the design was changed. Dennis suggested that the error was blatant, and in my recently published text, A Guide Book of United States Type Coins, and in other places in recent years. To be precise, my comment in the Type Set book was/is this:
This is the coin that everybody loves—an absolutely gorgeous design that usually comes well struck and, if in Mint State, deeply lustrous. The “naughty” (not really) exposure of Miss Liberty’s right breast lends appeal to some buyers, not logically as this is simply art and nothing else. In fact, if a numismatist of 1916 could come to life today, he or she would find the whole bare-breast matter to be a bit silly.… In 1917 the motif was significantly modified with the advice and consent of Hermon A. MacNeil, who was very critical of the first design. Miss Liberty now appears sheathed in a jacket of armor, further suggesting military preparedness in view of the World War then raging in Europe, to which America was busily supplying munitions to the allies (England, France and others). On the reverse the position of the eagle was modified and the stars arranged. The covering of Miss Liberty’s right breast, seemingly dramatic to later numismatic observers, is not mentioned in known correspondence between the artist and the Mint. Instead the letters dealt with the legs of Miss Liberty, the word LIBERTY, the position of the eagle and its feet, etc.
At the same time, I take responsibility for having written in the past that prudery was the reason for the cover up. That was conventional wisdom years ago and appeared by many writers in many different places. Walter Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, 1988, amplifies this:
A feature of the new design, although cherished by the general public, proved to be the downfall of MacNeil’s own conception. Followers of the unlamented Anthony Comstock, who had waged war on “immorality,” noticed that Miss Liberty’s drapery exposed her right nipple, including (on the sharpest striking) a realistic areola. Through their Society for the Suppression of Vice, the guardians of prudery at once began exerting political pressure on the Treasury Department to revoke authorizations for these “immoral coins” and to withdraw them from circulation. By the time they reached Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo, their success was in sight… Nevertheless, the Treasury refused to recall the coins already in circulation, and the general public saved enormous quantities of 1917 “Type I” as first of their kind. McAdoo and others falsely claimed that the “Type I” coins would not stack, as an argument for changing their designs…but the real reason for its discontinuance was unquestionably prudery of the kind H.L. Mencken and George Bernard Shaw used to call Comstockery. American official morality was no more ready in 1917 for a semi-nude coin than it had been in 1896-1898 for a semi-nude Miss Electricity on the $5 “educational” note. Whatever we think today of Comstock, his enormous political clout then all too accurately reflected the abysmal state of national consciousness.
As are many of Walter Breen’s writings, the preceding is presented in a very authoritative manner, causing little reason for anyone question the text. However, correspondence between MacNeil and Mint personnel reveals without question that it was MacNeil’s own idea to change the design, and that prudery, semi-nude exposure, and “Comstockery” were not elements at all.
One thing does lead to another, and scarcely an hour after hearing from publisher Dennis Tucker I received a telephone call from Jon Blackwell, who is doing a story for, coincidentally, COINage magazine, about Walter Breen. He brought up the bare-bosom story and asked where Walter came up with this and other things that have been proved incorrect. Then, not long after concluding my talk with Jon Blackwell I remembered that a few years ago I had addressed the Numismatic Bibliomania Society, the topic being “The Fascinating Challenge of Numismatic Research.” I was able to find a transcript of this August 10, 2001, talk. Relevant to the Breen discussion, here is what I said back then:
Walter Breen’s published findings based on research at the National Archives, in libraries, and elsewhere were good and bad, a combination of hits and misses. The good things were that he discovered many things that had not been studied by numismatists before. The bad thing was that he committed much to memory.. For example, he went to the Johns Hopkins collection in Baltimore, made mental notes. He was a polymath and could make mental notes but then when he made up a list of, for example—this is a real example—of all known original 1827 quarters, a definitive list he published as such, he forgot the Johns Hopkins coin. He just forgot about it. In other instances, he “added” coins to collections that were never there.
And also Walter made a huge number of assumptions and guesses, particularly in the area of mintages figures, restriking activities at the Mint, and more. He would look at a mintage report and if deliveries of coins were made on certain dates, he would say, well then, that all in this batch were made from die No. 1, this group is all from die No. 2, and die No. 3 struck precisely 3,245 coins, or whatever. A lot this found its way into the Guide Book and now has to be undone. Unfortunately, he did not identify what was a fact and what was a guess.
Also, Walter’s reference sources were extremely limited, actually incredibly so. If a coin appeared in a New Netherlands, or Stack’s, or Bowers and Merena, or Chapman catalogue, it was likely to be cited by him. However, virtually all of the vast repertoire of Thomas L. Elder catalogues—laden with rarities and information—was completely ignored! Similarly, Hollinbeck Coin Co. (the Kagin brothers), Geoffrey Adams, Bangs & Co., and thousands of other auction catalogues were never studied. The published results of Walter’s research myopia, once considered to be Gospel by the numismatic community, can be rather humorous when read today—check out the rarity comments on Charlotte and Dahlonega Mint gold dollars in the undated monograph, Major Varieties of U.S. Gold Dollars, that Hewitt Brothers published in 1964!
Of a politician it was once facetiously said, “I know that half of what he says is true. The problem is that I don’t know which half!” Probably 80% of Breen’s theories and assumptions correlate with facts, and 20% do not—but it is taking an entire cadre of modern researchers to separate fact from guesswork.
And I imagine that among much other published historical research, including things that I’ve done, there are things that can be challenged at one point or another. However, the research of R.W. Julian, to pick just one name from the Breen era (Bob Julian published much information from the 1960s onward, can today be used with a very high confidence level, as Bob was and is super-careful. In contrast, on a broad base much of Walter’s things range from assumption to pure fiction, the “Midnight Minters” of 1858 being in the latter category (in my opinion, which, to be fair, invites challenge).
All of this said, Walter Breen deserves a huge helping of credit for creating interest, inspiring others, and blazing the way for modern day scholars. I think all of us in doing anything have to lay a wreath at Walter’s grave, figuratively, and say that he opened the area of popular numismatic research.
Some Notes on Walter Breen
Recently, while thinking about what to write for the “Focus on People” feature, Dennis Tucker, who holds the title of publisher at Whitman Publishing Company, called my attention to a writer in the current issue of COINage, who was crediting me and several others with saying that on the Standing Liberty quarter of 1916, Miss Liberty was found to be immodestly dressed, and due to public outcry, the design was changed. Dennis suggested that the error was blatant, and in my recently published text, A Guide Book of United States Type Coins, and in other places in recent years. To be precise, my comment in the Type Set book was/is this:
This is the coin that everybody loves—an absolutely gorgeous design that usually comes well struck and, if in Mint State, deeply lustrous. The “naughty” (not really) exposure of Miss Liberty’s right breast lends appeal to some buyers, not logically as this is simply art and nothing else. In fact, if a numismatist of 1916 could come to life today, he or she would find the whole bare-breast matter to be a bit silly.… In 1917 the motif was significantly modified with the advice and consent of Hermon A. MacNeil, who was very critical of the first design. Miss Liberty now appears sheathed in a jacket of armor, further suggesting military preparedness in view of the World War then raging in Europe, to which America was busily supplying munitions to the allies (England, France and others). On the reverse the position of the eagle was modified and the stars arranged. The covering of Miss Liberty’s right breast, seemingly dramatic to later numismatic observers, is not mentioned in known correspondence between the artist and the Mint. Instead the letters dealt with the legs of Miss Liberty, the word LIBERTY, the position of the eagle and its feet, etc.
At the same time, I take responsibility for having written in the past that prudery was the reason for the cover up. That was conventional wisdom years ago and appeared by many writers in many different places. Walter Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, 1988, amplifies this:
A feature of the new design, although cherished by the general public, proved to be the downfall of MacNeil’s own conception. Followers of the unlamented Anthony Comstock, who had waged war on “immorality,” noticed that Miss Liberty’s drapery exposed her right nipple, including (on the sharpest striking) a realistic areola. Through their Society for the Suppression of Vice, the guardians of prudery at once began exerting political pressure on the Treasury Department to revoke authorizations for these “immoral coins” and to withdraw them from circulation. By the time they reached Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo, their success was in sight… Nevertheless, the Treasury refused to recall the coins already in circulation, and the general public saved enormous quantities of 1917 “Type I” as first of their kind. McAdoo and others falsely claimed that the “Type I” coins would not stack, as an argument for changing their designs…but the real reason for its discontinuance was unquestionably prudery of the kind H.L. Mencken and George Bernard Shaw used to call Comstockery. American official morality was no more ready in 1917 for a semi-nude coin than it had been in 1896-1898 for a semi-nude Miss Electricity on the $5 “educational” note. Whatever we think today of Comstock, his enormous political clout then all too accurately reflected the abysmal state of national consciousness.
As are many of Walter Breen’s writings, the preceding is presented in a very authoritative manner, causing little reason for anyone question the text. However, correspondence between MacNeil and Mint personnel reveals without question that it was MacNeil’s own idea to change the design, and that prudery, semi-nude exposure, and “Comstockery” were not elements at all.
One thing does lead to another, and scarcely an hour after hearing from publisher Dennis Tucker I received a telephone call from Jon Blackwell, who is doing a story for, coincidentally, COINage magazine, about Walter Breen. He brought up the bare-bosom story and asked where Walter came up with this and other things that have been proved incorrect. Then, not long after concluding my talk with Jon Blackwell I remembered that a few years ago I had addressed the Numismatic Bibliomania Society, the topic being “The Fascinating Challenge of Numismatic Research.” I was able to find a transcript of this August 10, 2001, talk. Relevant to the Breen discussion, here is what I said back then:
Walter Breen’s published findings based on research at the National Archives, in libraries, and elsewhere were good and bad, a combination of hits and misses. The good things were that he discovered many things that had not been studied by numismatists before. The bad thing was that he committed much to memory.. For example, he went to the Johns Hopkins collection in Baltimore, made mental notes. He was a polymath and could make mental notes but then when he made up a list of, for example—this is a real example—of all known original 1827 quarters, a definitive list he published as such, he forgot the Johns Hopkins coin. He just forgot about it. In other instances, he “added” coins to collections that were never there.
And also Walter made a huge number of assumptions and guesses, particularly in the area of mintages figures, restriking activities at the Mint, and more. He would look at a mintage report and if deliveries of coins were made on certain dates, he would say, well then, that all in this batch were made from die No. 1, this group is all from die No. 2, and die No. 3 struck precisely 3,245 coins, or whatever. A lot this found its way into the Guide Book and now has to be undone. Unfortunately, he did not identify what was a fact and what was a guess.
Also, Walter’s reference sources were extremely limited, actually incredibly so. If a coin appeared in a New Netherlands, or Stack’s, or Bowers and Merena, or Chapman catalogue, it was likely to be cited by him. However, virtually all of the vast repertoire of Thomas L. Elder catalogues—laden with rarities and information—was completely ignored! Similarly, Hollinbeck Coin Co. (the Kagin brothers), Geoffrey Adams, Bangs & Co., and thousands of other auction catalogues were never studied. The published results of Walter’s research myopia, once considered to be Gospel by the numismatic community, can be rather humorous when read today—check out the rarity comments on Charlotte and Dahlonega Mint gold dollars in the undated monograph, Major Varieties of U.S. Gold Dollars, that Hewitt Brothers published in 1964!
Of a politician it was once facetiously said, “I know that half of what he says is true. The problem is that I don’t know which half!” Probably 80% of Breen’s theories and assumptions correlate with facts, and 20% do not—but it is taking an entire cadre of modern researchers to separate fact from guesswork.
And I imagine that among much other published historical research, including things that I’ve done, there are things that can be challenged at one point or another. However, the research of R.W. Julian, to pick just one name from the Breen era (Bob Julian published much information from the 1960s onward, can today be used with a very high confidence level, as Bob was and is super-careful. In contrast, on a broad base much of Walter’s things range from assumption to pure fiction, the “Midnight Minters” of 1858 being in the latter category (in my opinion, which, to be fair, invites challenge).
All of this said, Walter Breen deserves a huge helping of credit for creating interest, inspiring others, and blazing the way for modern day scholars. I think all of us in doing anything have to lay a wreath at Walter’s grave, figuratively, and say that he opened the area of popular numismatic research.
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
I hate to see you get shut out, so I will respond.
Breen is a great first reference but anything that looked "suspicious" I would want to see the primary documents. Of course, knowing what is "suspicious" and what isn't is the trick
In reality, no one could write a book covering the breadth and depth of Breen's Encyclopedia and verify everything. It would be too massive of an undertaking.
What would be nice is if there was a way to collect all the disproven statements in the BE and replace them with correct info, and then republish the book. But that would only work if the information was supplied to the person doing the editing because doing that PLUS the research is way too much.
Maybe some deep-pocketed collector who loves numismatics and history will make a multi-million dollar grant to an organization which has the resources to ferret out the mistakes in the BE, do the additional research that Breen didn't do, and track down any newly-published info that corrects what Breen said. Wouldn't that be cool. A book like BE that is error-free, updated, and benefits from much additional research!
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
As for the controversies surrounding the Type I Standing Liberty quarter, one need only look at the secretary of treasury at the time that the design was unveiled. William Gibbs McAdoo was a blue nose of the first order. McAdoo, who was Woodrow Wilson’s son-in-law, lead a now extinct wing of the Democratic Party that was a right wing as the modern Christian fundamentalists and then some. He was a staunch supporter prohibition, an anti-smut crusader and a defender of Ku Klux Klan.
While the public announcements of the time made vague references to “increasing the artistic merit of the design,” it was be hard to believe that a stuffed shirt like William Gibbs McAdoo would have condoned a bare breasted Ms. Liberty. And it’s equally interesting to note that after the design was changed, the mint could never strike the coins consistently well again, despite modifications. At 80% of the 1917 Philadelphia mint Type 1 quarters have full heads. After the design was changed the numbers dropped to 30% of the coins at the very best. Clearly artistic merit didn’t have that much to do with the change in design. Prudish attitudes did.
<< <i>What really gets me about these people who constantly attack Breen is that none of them have yet attempted to publish a work that covers as much ground as Breen's Encyclopedia. They chip away at the edges and find faults here and there that could be true of any pioneering work. >>
A good question about virtually any criticism. Don't knock it until you try it yourself.
<< <i> What really gets me about these people who constantly attack Breen is that none of them have yet attempted to publish a work that covers as much ground as Breen's Encyclopedia. They chip away at the edges and find faults here and there that could be true of any pioneering work. >>
No one who writes would dare criticize an author or a book in a major way because of an error. Everyone makes them, and every published research work is bound to be surpassed or outdated at some point. The prime criticism of those who fault Breen, like QDB and Rittenhouse, is his poor methodology. If you miscopy a primary text and publish that misquote, perhaps someone will get persnickety but most will let it slide. However, when you go on the record in the 1950s saying X is speculation, then say in the 1960s that it's speculation but probably true, then by the 1970s suggest that there is no other possible explanation, and by the 1980s say that it is the absolute truth -- while bringing no new evidence to bear -- I think it is easy to be faulted for your methodology.
To cite one example of the top of my head (an example I owe to someone else I correspond with), Breen noted early in his career than Joseph J. Mickley owned 1 of 4 1827 quarters that W. Eliot Woodward knew of in the 1870s (or thereabouts, I do not have the precise citation in front of me). By 1988, Breen claimed that Mickley owned 4 quarters, and furthermore he had bought them from the Mint in 1827 when he presented one dollar and was given all 4 in exchange! He completed concocted the story, and it passed as gospel for decades. He totally made it up, from whole cloth, and a modern researcher (Karl Moulton) has proven it was bunk.
His explanation of why certain "presentation" strikes exist was the same way. He mentions in some cases that a certain coin was struck on April X, 179X to be given to Mr. X to commemorate X. Because he was the only one that had access to the original sources for years, people took him at his word. Now that others have gone into the exact same documents (some of which have Walter's handwriting all over them as if these papers were his personal scratchpad), people like RW Julian, Rittenhouse, etc., we discover that not a single word is said of all this! Breen thought the story sounded good, and he repeated it as fact.
Breen did great work in the Archives and really should be considered the fountainhead of all American numismatic research that has followed. He started it, plain and simple. But later in his career he rested on his laurels and his faded memory to the disservice of his earlier and better earned body of work.
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
He was niether a "mainstream" person, nor a "proper" numismatist in life.
He did, dressed, acted how he wanted to no matter what the occaision or function.
Me thinks that some people despised his knowledge just because of the way he was.
That is NOT to say he was always right.
And the true and correct story SHOULD be written on numismatic history.
BUT all this does give ample ammunition and extra impetus to go after anything he ever published.
Just my humble opinion.
Pete