So, after all the discussion, I decided to pick of the Breen's Encyclopedia. I got a clean copy for about $20.00 on Abes books. It is huge and I tried to read some of it on the Subway, but that proved very difficult as it is just so massive and heavy. I started out with the entry for the Buffalo Nickles. Much of what I read I had heard before, and I suppose that the entry has been repeated almost to the point that some of it is folk law. One thing is certain, Breen was no fan of Barber, and he makes that clear as dirt. Thew minute detail in the descriptions and the entry covers a lot of what I find monotonous detail which I have zero interest in. which is not to say that others might not be interested. But honesty, I couldn't care less about Mint politics a full 90 years after most of the players are dead, and the details have so little consequences on the coins development and what we are trying to collect. There are other interesting things I might have been interested in which he didn't cover. One thing though, is that if this is all original research, it is an extraordinary effort. Some things he wrote are just ramblings... for example, "Fraser chose to depict on the rev, not a European buffalo but an American Bison... and my reaction is "Really - in what universe would we have a nickel with a Buffalo from Europe?" And then he tops it off by excusing the public for not distinguishing between Buffalo and Bison. It is a waste of ink. There is some discussion on the "Monstrous Fuss" by vending machine makers. This could have been covered in a single sentence instead of a quarter of a page. And he throws about judgemental adjectives like this about. What possibly can qualify as a "Monstrous Fuss" when it comes to designing a coin. It would have been suffice to say that various business interests lobbied for design changes and in the end the mint put them aside and went forward with its 1913 design. Then he discusses in detail his view of the Barber changes in the coins and does as far as to classify that as a whole other coin. It is personal and petty, and mostly not that professional. Instead of making it clear what the different patterns were and how to differential them, he talks in circles on the topic. In the end, the meat of the entry includes 5 1913 designs, including two prototypes without the F, the proof with the F and the regular issue with an F. The write up for the Fraser-Barber coin from 1913-1938 is even longer and more convoluted. There is a lot of information there, but god help you to find it if you ever need it. It is completely disorganized and jumps around in a disorientating way. I don't like it use of short hand abbreviations in the work, either. "Unfortunately, professional jealousy reared it stupid head, and Mint Engraver Charles E. Barber could not bear to leave well enough alone". This is a personal expression of opinion that should never be a professional work. If you read this, and never views the coins, you would think that the Buffalo Nickel after the Barber intervention was as different as Daffy Duck and Donald Duck. It is still essentially the same coin, not that I am defending Barber and the changes he made. He seemingly randomly throws in a discussion on the proof version, which could have been organized into its own section to make i all clearer. I studies this for a couple of days and moved on the SLQs. In retrospect, Breens brutal and judgemental assault on the political groups that were offended buy the nudity of the coin are more serious than the comical way they read. The way he rights it, you would think he was there at the time, which is sad considering the retrospective knowledge that Breen was a terrible pedophile and a sexual predictor. He does make some interesting observations about the mintage of full heads and die wear, claiming that it seems unlikely that full heads were the product of new dies, but exceptional strikes. For me, I don't care how the leaves are 0.2 mm longer on one die than another or that a mint mark is slightly to the left or the right etc etc. It is not how I collect coins. It is a ton of work, but he needed a real editor to organize this martial and cut out the irrelevant diatribes. Honestly, to the more part I would stick to the red book with is cleaner and much better organized.
The Monstrous Fuss is covered much better in Roger Burdette's Renaissance of American Coinage books, and frankly it is rather interesting, at least to me. Yes he really didn't like Charles Barber as an engraver, Burdette doesn't like him either. On the other hand Barber didn't like anyone intruding in his engraving department either, and he DID understand the requirements for producing coins better most outside artists. It's one of the things that doomed the 1890 competition to redesign the dime, quarter, and half. A design competition with three judges, two of which believed that THEY were the only artist qualified to design a coin. (Barber and Saint-Gaudens) Breen's judgmental assault on the political groups such as the Society for the Suppression of Vice, probably comes from the knowledge of how they would have viewed and treated him. But the nonsense about them objecting to the SLQ is just that nonsense. The plans to make changes in the design began even as the first cons were being released and were underway long before the Society could have even seen the coins. There is NO contemporary evidence of any objection to the bare breast on the coin. (This is most likely one of the cases of Breen just making things up to support his opinion.) Also the change in adding the chain mail covering the breast came from McNeil not from the Mint. The Mint provided a list of changes they wanted with the order that no changes other than the ones listed were to be made. The covering of the breast was not on the list. More than likely it was McNeil's own idea. The quarter design contains a lot of symbolism in reference to the coming war in Europe, and he probably felt that if you are getting ready for war, you go in protected not half nude. So he added the chain mail corset.
You have to remember the context of the times when the Breen book came out. Collectors are spoiled today by the number of numismatic books in print. There were a fair number of books in Breen's day, and nothing like the current group. The closest think to Breen's book was one by Don Taxay. The first edition of that book was fairly well done. The second one had far more editing errors that you will find in Breen. Yes, Breen made some stuff up and he allowed his bias against Victorian values to color his opinions. Yet, for its time, the book was a huge step forward. And no one has attempted something with that broad of a scope since then.
Many of today's coin collectors are specialists and want in depth studies of the various US coin series. EAC collectors are one such a group. And I'm quick to admit I've become rather specialized. So a more generalized book doesn't hack it. And there are constant series updates adding new information.
Also most of the book was actually written in the 1950's, which is why a lot of the rarity information in it is wrong. It wasn't updated before it was published in 1988. And yes it could have used better editing, but who knows how long that would have delayed it. The editing for the Breen Encyclopedia on the early date large cents took ten years. As far as a generalized book though it is rather good, especially for more obscure series and information. In another thread there was a question about the weight of a Rhode Island Ship token. The poster mentioned he had spent a long time trying to find a reference to it. It took me about a minute to find it in the Breen encyclopedia, references to weights for several specimens and a general weight range. I use my copy frequently. (often enough that it is falling to pieces, the binding job was crappy.)
It is the meandering prose that is probably as ineffective as any specific opinions. His writing is just not organized.
Actually, there's a lot that's accurate and useful in Breen's books. The problem is that you don't know which is which unless you read the more recent studies of the specific types. EAC members, no doubt, have read many of my critiques of Breen's writings on half cents and large cents. That said, I still use Breen's big encyclopedia and his half cent and large cent encyclopedias, but they're not the last word on anything.
A lot of crap in his book. I gave mine to Good Will. Like many other's I moved on to Red Book, among others.
This. Burdette's books are much more professionally researched and written. It is so sad that he is banned from a certain other numismatic chat room.
If I'm not mistaken, aren't authors paid by the word? If so, then RAMBLINGS= $$$$$. When his book was published, he was considered to be a pre eminent researcher. At that time there was no Internet to "fact check" every detail. Much easier with the internet.
I don't know about that. It seems it is dependent on Breem's research and is mostly a secondary source where Breen was a work of primary research. It is just his writing and organization is terrible.
Breen's Magnum Opus covers FAR more ground than Burdette's excellent books, which cover early 20th Century pieces. Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges. Many readers are too hard on Breen's book. Experts still consult it, trying to keep the opinion separate from the facts. Use it as a starting point on ANY series, and if you want to learn the latest, go to one of the many specialist books. His sins as a human being are horrible and undeniable. His numismatic research was imperfect, but the best in the world 30 years ago. I can't think of anyone's research from that long ago that holds up.
You raised the issue of the "monstrous fuss" over the introduction of the Buffalo Nickel. If you want the facts of the controversy, which is in fact numismatically significant, read Burdette.
