KEOJ writes "In my own speciality, there are 53 Breen numbers. I quite sure that 1 of these numbers don't exist (whether they were made up or assumed I couldn't say),..."
In my own specialty there are Breen numbers for 9 phamtoms. Breen numbers 4379, 4383, 4387, 4391, 4395, 4399, 4403, 4409 and 4414. These are for the 1956- D thru 1964- D "Type B" reverse quarters. I have learned never to say "never", but I don't believe they exist. (The Cherrypickers' Guide considers them a real possibilty though.)
There were enthusiastic specialists looking for them in the days of yore when silver circulated freely and they couldn't find them then nor since. Walter lists my name three times as being his source.
Incidently Breen 4427, 4431, 4435 and 4439 (1969-D thru 1972-D "Type B" do exist, although there the Cherrypicker's Guide is doubtful.
Excellent post by Pistareen...excellent thread overall.
I hesitated to read this thread because it's been discussed here before and it usually comes down to acknowledging that Breen's Encyclopedia is a valuable tool but it must be used in conjunction with other sources.
The obvious problem is that a novice collector could read Breen's Encyclopedia and take it as gospel truth. For me, Breen's Encyclopedia is useful as an additional resource after I've exhausted all other available sources on a topic or coin I'm researching.
Perhaps the greatest "Breen Myth" has to do with the visit to the U S Mint by Lord St. Oswald in October 1795.
For those who haven't read this detailed fabrication, I recommend that you do so.
It started in 1964 with a box of American coins that was consigned to Christie's in London.
I have been digging for facts on this story since the mid 1970s (after one of the Mint State 1794 dollars re-appeared in a 1973 Superior sale).
If all goes according to plan, there will be a 50-60 page monograph printed next year, which will for the first time, reveal the true background behind the American / Lord St. Oswald coins. It's quite an epic story.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Here is a quote from Walter Breen's letter of May 16, 1977 comiserating with me on a shared problem. "I too have that same pack rat memory, which sometimes causes delays in locating sources. Too many of the sources proved to be crammed full of errors, which no teenager could have spotted them. God, how much we all have to unlearn! I wish to God I was about 16 and growing up now, or at worst about 26, and without the orphanage history."
<< <i>Here is a quote from Walter Breen's letter of May 16, 1977 comiserating with me on a shared problem. "I too have that same pack rat memory, which sometimes causes delays in locating sources. Too many of the sources proved to be crammed full of errors, which no teenager could have spotted them. God, how much we all have to unlearn! I wish to God I was about 16 and growing up now, or at worst about 26, and without the orphanage history." >>
Whatever path one chooses has pitfalls.
At the very least it can be safely said that someone with a great deal of unlearning to do for this reason has a great deal of knowledge. It's possible to have very little unlearning to do but it will necesarily be at the expense of knowledge.
Breen is full of holes, but who else could have written such a work? It's a great starting reference but you have to be like Ronald Reagan said about the Russians - "trust but verify".
To believe Walter Breen implicitly, means you are either lazy or ignorant!
Some of the finest American numismatic authors and researchers are regular forum responders. >>
That doesnt necessarily imply credibility does it? Internet forums have greatly enhanced my education in many aspects over the last 7-8 years. I have also learned not to take at face value what I read, even from –experts–. Likewise even the most accurate information can be hazardous without first gaining the background to properly process and evaluate the –expert– info.
Since I was the one who made that reply, I will state that the "finest American numismatic authors and researchers" have become the "finest" because of their credibility in doing background research.
The information that has been uncovered and presented since Breen is much more in depth and much more accurate.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
The difficulty is not errors – every publication will have errors, mistakes or excess editorial attention that changes meaning. The greatest problem with Walter Breen’s later work is that he invented events, guessed at quantities and relied too much on memory. By mixing deliberate (or subconscious) falsehood with accurate, verifiable material, he has forced later researchers to mistrust almost everything he wrote after approximately 1975.
As an example , and that's all this is presented for, here is a perfect revelation of just how contrary Breen was in his writings:
Today, most everyone involved in American numismatics has seen, or heard about Walter Breen's "Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins" which first appeared in 1977, and was revised and published by Bowers & Merena in 1989.
This assemblage gives a short background history of how and why these pieces were made. He introduces the terminology "presentation coins and sets" along with the "specimen" designation, which is seen in today's marketplace.
All of this provides for "authoritive" reading. On page 29, right before he begins with outlining each year, he writes a classic disclaimer "I realize that in enumerating presentation pieces I am to a certain extent violating the rather strict ground rules for identification of coins as proofs, but at the moment I see no alternative....But were I to omit the 1792-1811 pieces altogether from consideration, I would be leaving untouched a very real chapter in the history of minting practice at Philadelphia". (There are no extant records from the US Mint regarding any such pieces having ever been made).
In early 1963 when Breen wasn't working as a cataloguer (he was in between jobs from New Netherlands & Lester Merkin) he was asked to validate some early US proofs from a "Famous Old Collection". This was none other than the Joseph Reakirt collection of American coins which had been put together in the 1860's.
For those who don't know, Reakirt is the person who bought the 1827 three piece "proof set" from the October 1867 Joseph Mickley sale. Reakirt was a buyer of many nice coins which were labeled as "proof" at the time.
After reviewing the material, Breen told the cataloguers (Columbus Stamp and Coin) "there were no true proofs before 1855 other than dollars, but are choice first strikes from polished dies and some of the coins listed are the finest known". This was the only time where Breen had the situation correct in print regarding early US coinage with reflective surfaces.
This little known auction was published in the March 1963 Numismatic Scrapbook, as well as being typed up for lot viewers beforehand. Abe Kosoff ended up purchasing this entire group. The Reakirt sale ranks in importance right along side the Garrett sales, but unfortunately, was not presented properly.
If Breen had remained true to what he knew at that point, his Encyclopedia of Proof Coins would have never seen print.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Comments
In my own specialty there are Breen numbers for 9 phamtoms. Breen numbers 4379, 4383, 4387, 4391, 4395, 4399, 4403, 4409 and 4414.
These are for the 1956- D thru 1964- D "Type B" reverse quarters. I have learned never to say "never", but I don't believe they exist.
(The Cherrypickers' Guide considers them a real possibilty though.)
There were enthusiastic specialists looking for them in the days of yore when silver circulated freely and they couldn't find them then nor since. Walter lists my name three times as being his source.
Incidently Breen 4427, 4431, 4435 and 4439 (1969-D thru 1972-D "Type B" do exist, although there the Cherrypicker's Guide is doubtful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Breen
I hesitated to read this thread because it's been discussed here before and it usually comes down to acknowledging that Breen's Encyclopedia is a valuable tool but it must be used in conjunction with other sources.
The obvious problem is that a novice collector could read Breen's Encyclopedia and take it as gospel truth. For me, Breen's Encyclopedia is useful as an additional resource after I've exhausted all other available sources on a topic or coin I'm researching.
For those who haven't read this detailed fabrication, I recommend that you do so.
It started in 1964 with a box of American coins that was consigned to Christie's in London.
I have been digging for facts on this story since the mid 1970s (after one of the Mint State 1794 dollars re-appeared in a 1973 Superior sale).
If all goes according to plan, there will be a 50-60 page monograph printed next year, which will for the first time, reveal the true background behind the American / Lord St. Oswald coins. It's quite an epic story.
"I too have that same pack rat memory, which sometimes causes delays in locating sources. Too many of the sources proved to be crammed full of errors, which no teenager could have spotted them. God, how much we all have to unlearn! I wish to God I was about 16 and growing up now, or at worst about 26, and without the orphanage history."
<< <i>Here is a quote from Walter Breen's letter of May 16, 1977 comiserating with me on a shared problem.
"I too have that same pack rat memory, which sometimes causes delays in locating sources. Too many of the sources proved to be crammed full of errors, which no teenager could have spotted them. God, how much we all have to unlearn! I wish to God I was about 16 and growing up now, or at worst about 26, and without the orphanage history." >>
Whatever path one chooses has pitfalls.
At the very least it can be safely said that someone with a great deal of unlearning to do
for this reason has a great deal of knowledge. It's possible to have very little unlearning
to do but it will necesarily be at the expense of knowledge.
<< <i>Given a choice between Breen and what is posted here, I always go with Breen >>
"If I say something in the woods, and my wife isn't around to hear it. Am I still wrong?"
<< <i>breen's book has alot of errors. of course, it's a total shock to some that a mammoth book that size would have any errors at all.
more importantly, there's an enormous majority of RELIABLE information in the book.
K S >>
I don't think importantly is a word...
<< <i>To Steve27 -
To believe Walter Breen implicitly, means you are either lazy or ignorant!
Some of the finest American numismatic authors and researchers are regular forum responders. >>
That doesnt necessarily imply credibility does it? Internet forums have greatly enhanced my education in many aspects over the last 7-8 years. I have also learned not to take at face value what I read, even from –experts–.
Likewise even the most accurate information can be hazardous without first gaining the background to properly process and evaluate the –expert– info.
The information that has been uncovered and presented since Breen is much more in depth and much more accurate.
<< <i>
<< <i>To Steve27 -
To believe Walter Breen implicitly, means you are either lazy or ignorant!
Some of the finest American numismatic authors and researchers are regular forum responders. >>
That doesnt necessarily imply credibility does it? >>
Hey, once you have that PCGS password, you are golden
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Just my personal opinion.
Today, most everyone involved in American numismatics has seen, or heard about Walter Breen's "Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins" which first appeared in 1977, and was revised and published by Bowers & Merena in 1989.
This assemblage gives a short background history of how and why these pieces were made. He introduces the terminology "presentation coins and sets" along with the "specimen" designation, which is seen in today's marketplace.
All of this provides for "authoritive" reading. On page 29, right before he begins with outlining each year, he writes a classic disclaimer "I realize that in enumerating presentation pieces I am to a certain extent violating the rather strict ground rules for identification of coins as proofs, but at the moment I see no alternative....But were I to omit the 1792-1811 pieces altogether from consideration, I would be leaving untouched a very real chapter in the history of minting practice at Philadelphia". (There are no extant records from the US Mint regarding any such pieces having ever been made).
In early 1963 when Breen wasn't working as a cataloguer (he was in between jobs from New Netherlands & Lester Merkin) he was asked to validate some early US proofs from a "Famous Old Collection". This was none other than the Joseph Reakirt collection of American coins which had been put together in the 1860's.
For those who don't know, Reakirt is the person who bought the 1827 three piece "proof set" from the October 1867 Joseph Mickley sale. Reakirt was a buyer of many nice coins which were labeled as "proof" at the time.
After reviewing the material, Breen told the cataloguers (Columbus Stamp and Coin) "there were no true proofs before 1855 other than dollars, but are choice first strikes from polished dies and some of the coins listed are the finest known". This was the only time where Breen had the situation correct in print regarding early US coinage with reflective surfaces.
This little known auction was published in the March 1963 Numismatic Scrapbook, as well as being typed up for lot viewers beforehand. Abe Kosoff ended up purchasing this entire group. The Reakirt sale ranks in importance right along side the Garrett sales, but unfortunately, was not presented properly.
If Breen had remained true to what he knew at that point, his Encyclopedia of Proof Coins would have never seen print.