LINCOLNMAN

On 11/19/2017 at 11:42 PM, david3142 said:

I haven't contributed to this thread in a while.  Here's one I got fairly recently:

 

 

I love these toned Lincolns. Are you putting a set like this together? 

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 11:40 AM, BillJones said:

My point exactly. The NGC was superior to the PCGS registry because it accepted both NGC and PCGS coins. Now it's a myopic marketing tool that little to do with the best of anything.

Too late, but a compromise might have been to allow a certain percentage of PCGS or ANACS coins in the registry. When this first came up I looked at some of the registries and saw some that were comprised almost entirely of PCGS coins. Sort of like cheating, two top registry sets for the price of one. If I were running NGC, I absolutely would have done something to end that, but would have taken a higher road.

11 hours ago, Afterword said:

The mint may not have released any 1936 proofs into circulation, but some surely entered circulation nonetheless.

I would think satin proofs in particular as they were apparently not well received.

5 hours ago, RWB said:

As noted before, much of Breen's work was quite good and innovative for its day. He was very sparse on documentation, but the hobby was tolerant of that back then. Today's numismatic standards are more rigorous, questioning, and demand much better documentation than back in the "good ole' days." Sadly, separating the reliable-Breen from the fantasy-Breen is a slow and difficult process.

This may be a good final word on this subject. My take-away is that one should approach Breen's work after absorbing current information rather than the reverse.

30 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

As a child, my Mother always told me, "If you have nothing good to say about anyone, then don't say anything

My mother said the same thing, but I believe that advice was meant for family, friends, and acquaintances. Don't think it applies to politicians, criminals, unsuccessful Cowboy coaches, and many others.  

The more I read, the more often I run into examples where Walter's research is questioned as faulty, unsupported, or where he is accused of fantasy. I met the man once, as an adult (stress that) , many years ago at an ANA summer seminar. A man of strong opinions to be sure. He has left us with a huge body of research, much of it valuable. I've always considered his books to be "must reads"; however , I wonder, on balance is it better to read his books or not? For that matter do you think his overall numismatic legacy is positive or has he done as much or more harm than good?