Breen Encyclopedia Binding

Anyone who owns a copy of the 1988 Breen Encyclopedia no doubt knows how
poorly it was bound, rather surprising and disappointing for a Doubleday
product. Essentially you have a paperback glued into a hard cover, and by
now the glue has started to dry out and pages are starting to come out quite
easily, just like a cheap school tablet.

I just engaged a bookbinder to repair my copy. The base charge is $32.00,
and I learned that for an extra $20.00, they can sew the body of the book,
provide a new pastedown and freefly front and back, and put it right back
into the original cover. Since the cover is nicely embossed on the front
and goldstamped on the spine, I elected the option. The book cost me $75
when I bought it 20 years ago, so this raises my investment to $127, still
only half the cost of buying one on the secondary market, and I get a strong
binding to boot.

James

Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Anyone who owns a copy of the 1988 Breen Encyclopedia no doubt knows ...

You're still left with a book rife with errors, on average one per page,
according to an analysis Alan Herbert did. This is a far higher error
rate than is acceptable and a far higher error rate than the vast
majority of other nonfiction writers, inside and outside of numismatics,
are prone to. Breen was a drug abuser with a faltering memory whose
notes were supposedly lost in a fire and a child rapist when he wrote
his encyclopedia, and he died about five years afterward in prison, a
convicted felon. Yep, this is a book to treasure! Others on Breen:

Karl Moulton in a 2001 article in Q. David Bowers' Rare Coin Review:
"The time has come for new thinking about much of Walter Breen's
research, as he often did not validate his sources or present the facts
properly. Many modern researchers are finding substantial credibility
gaps in his writings, which cover all areas of American numismatics."

R. W. Julian: "That Walter Breen fabricated materials for his
encyclopedia and other references is well known. The difficulty is in
determining just where this was done."

Alan Herbert: "In most cases Breen is no longer the final authority, so
use with caution.… He is rightly accused of making up 'facts' to fit his
viewpoints…. The problem is picking the good from the bad…. Everything
he published is suspect, more or less."

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Anyone who owns a copy of the 1988 Breen Encyclopedia no doubt knows
...

You're still left with a book rife with errors, on average one per
page, according to an analysis Alan Herbert did. This is a far higher
error rate than is acceptable and a far higher error rate than the
vast majority of other nonfiction writers, inside and outside of
numismatics, are prone to. Breen was a drug abuser with a faltering
memory whose notes were supposedly lost in a fire and a child rapist
when he wrote his encyclopedia, and he died about five years
afterward in prison, a convicted felon. Yep, this is a book to
treasure! Others on Breen:
Karl Moulton in a 2001 article in Q. David Bowers' Rare Coin Review:
"The time has come for new thinking about much of Walter Breen's
research, as he often did not validate his sources or present the
facts properly. Many modern researchers are finding substantial
credibility gaps in his writings, which cover all areas of American
numismatics."
R. W. Julian: "That Walter Breen fabricated materials for his
encyclopedia and other references is well known. The difficulty is in
determining just where this was done."

Alan Herbert: "In most cases Breen is no longer the final authority,
so use with caution.… He is rightly accused of making up 'facts' to
fit his viewpoints…. The problem is picking the good from the bad….
Everything he published is suspect, more or less."

If Alan Herbert's analysis is published, I'd appreciate a pointer to the
reference if you have it. I'd like to correct my copy of Breen. Thank you.

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Anyone who owns a copy of the 1988 Breen Encyclopedia no doubt knows
...

You're still left with a book rife with errors, on average one per
page, according to an analysis Alan Herbert did. This is a far higher
error rate than is acceptable and a far higher error rate than the
vast majority of other nonfiction writers, inside and outside of
numismatics, are prone to. Breen was a drug abuser with a faltering
memory whose notes were supposedly lost in a fire and a child rapist
when he wrote his encyclopedia, and he died about five years
afterward in prison, a convicted felon. Yep, this is a book to
treasure! Others on Breen:
Karl Moulton in a 2001 article in Q. David Bowers' Rare Coin Review:
"The time has come for new thinking about much of Walter Breen's
research, as he often did not validate his sources or present the
facts properly. Many modern researchers are finding substantial
credibility gaps in his writings, which cover all areas of American
numismatics."
R. W. Julian: "That Walter Breen fabricated materials for his
encyclopedia and other references is well known. The difficulty is in
determining just where this was done."

Alan Herbert: "In most cases Breen is no longer the final authority,
so use with caution.… He is rightly accused of making up 'facts' to
fit his viewpoints…. The problem is picking the good from the bad….
Everything he published is suspect, more or less."

Aw jeez, Reid, why'd ya have to go and ruin my day? Can't you find it in
your heart to say one kind word about the man? Jeez.

For the record, the error rate in the new Bowers book on Early American
Coins is unacceptably high as well. Drop in on the Yahoo group
colonial-numismatics for a peek at all the reported errors. Hopefully Dave
will live long enough to come out with a second edition.

James

Thomas A. wrote:
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Anyone who owns a copy of the 1988 Breen Encyclopedia no doubt knows
...

You're still left with a book rife with errors, on average one per
page, according to an analysis Alan Herbert did. This is a far higher
error rate than is acceptable and a far higher error rate than the
vast majority of other nonfiction writers, inside and outside of
numismatics, are prone to. Breen was a drug abuser with a faltering
memory whose notes were supposedly lost in a fire and a child rapist
when he wrote his encyclopedia, and he died about five years
afterward in prison, a convicted felon. Yep, this is a book to
treasure! Others on Breen:
Karl Moulton in a 2001 article in Q. David Bowers' Rare Coin Review:
"The time has come for new thinking about much of Walter Breen's
research, as he often did not validate his sources or present the
facts properly. Many modern researchers are finding substantial
credibility gaps in his writings, which cover all areas of American
numismatics."
R. W. Julian: "That Walter Breen fabricated materials for his
encyclopedia and other references is well known. The difficulty is in
determining just where this was done."

Alan Herbert: "In most cases Breen is no longer the final authority,
so use with caution.. He is rightly accused of making up 'facts' to
fit his viewpoints.. The problem is picking the good from the bad..
Everything he published is suspect, more or less."

If Alan Herbert's analysis is published, I'd appreciate a pointer to
the reference if you have it. I'd like to correct my copy of Breen. Thank
you.

Unfortunately it's typical of the pious cognoscenti to speak in parables and
generalities, without furnishing even a single example.

James

Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Unfortunately it's typical of the pious cognoscenti to speak in parables and
generalities, without furnishing even a single example.

Lots of *individual* examples of errors have been reported since the
publication of Breen, reported over the years in this newsgroup and
elsewhere. I personally found and reported two of them here, one
involving Draped Bust coins, the other Saints, which are the two U.S.
coin areas I know best. Others have reported others. To answer Thomas'
question, Alan Herbert's analysis from what I understand was from a
sampling of pages, not anywhere near the the entire book. Nobody has put
together an errata of all known errors because it would be a huge
undertaking, requiring hundreds if not thousands of hours hunting down
and looking at the original sources Breen supposedly looked at (in many
cases he didn't, just said he did, according to those who have looked at
individual examples). Also, it would need to be undertaken by someone
with a very wide and deep knowledge of U.S. coinage, which few people
have. The time required, for any given writer/researcher, would be
better spent putting out his own encyclopedia, or so I suspect in trying
to put myself in such a person's shoes.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Unfortunately it's typical of the pious cognoscenti to speak in
parables and generalities, without furnishing even a single example.

Lots of *individual* examples of errors have been reported since the
publication of Breen, reported over the years in this newsgroup and
elsewhere. I personally found and reported two of them here, one
involving Draped Bust coins, the other Saints, which are the two U.S.
coin areas I know best. Others have reported others. To answer Thomas'
question, Alan Herbert's analysis from what I understand was from a
sampling of pages, not anywhere near the the entire book. Nobody has
put together an errata of all known errors because it would be a huge
undertaking, requiring hundreds if not thousands of hours hunting down
and looking at the original sources Breen supposedly looked at (in
many cases he didn't, just said he did, according to those who have
looked at individual examples). Also, it would need to be undertaken
by someone with a very wide and deep knowledge of U.S. coinage, which
few people have. The time required, for any given writer/researcher,
would be better spent putting out his own encyclopedia, or so I
suspect in trying to put myself in such a person's shoes.

So, am I allowed to feel good again about the money I spent to rebind Breen,
or am I just a sentimental old fool? Don't answer that.

James

You have my permission! One of my favorite numismatic books is
Bowers' book on the Garrett collection. Just because it has lots of
mistakes in it doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.

On May 9, 5:57*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

So, am I allowed to feel good again about the money I spent to rebind Breen,
or am I just a sentimental old fool? *Don't answer that.

James

Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Unfortunately it's typical of the pious cognoscenti to speak in
parables and generalities, without furnishing even a single example.

Lots of *individual* examples of errors have been reported since the
publication of Breen, reported over the years in this newsgroup and
elsewhere. I personally found and reported two of them here, one
involving Draped Bust coins, the other Saints, which are the two U.S.
coin areas I know best. Others have reported others. To answer
Thomas' question, Alan Herbert's analysis from what I understand was
from a sampling of pages, not anywhere near the the entire book.
Nobody has put together an errata of all known errors because it
would be a huge undertaking, requiring hundreds if not thousands of
hours hunting down and looking at the original sources Breen
supposedly looked at (in many cases he didn't, just said he did,
according to those who have looked at individual examples). Also, it
would need to be undertaken by someone with a very wide and deep
knowledge of U.S. coinage, which few people have. The time required,
for any given writer/researcher, would be better spent putting out
his own encyclopedia, or so I suspect in trying to put myself in
such a person's shoes.

So, am I allowed to feel good again about the money I spent to rebind
Breen, or am I just a sentimental old fool? Don't answer that.

James

I think it is money well spent. Quite frequently in numismatics errors are
found, better dating methods come along (ancient coins) and new historical
evidence is uncovered which makes established and respected volumes less
than perfect. Part of the charm of numismatics and history may be the
reconstruction of it and the slips and turns we make along the way to the
truth.

bgg wrote:
You have my permission! One of my favorite numismatic books is
Bowers' book on the Garrett collection. Just because it has lots of
mistakes in it doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.

When my copy comes back from the bindery with new life breathed into it,
I'll allow it its usual honored spot in the ready-reference part of my
library that I keep close at hand! There it will feel back at home again,
all cozy among its old friends and neighbors by the hands of Breton, Yeoman,
Sheldon, Reinfeld, Brown & Dunn, and Lyman Low. Numismatic bibliomania is
good!

James