"I've read Karl Moulton's essay on Breen's shortcomings and Stuart Segan's more recent apologia. Karl and I have discussed some of Breen's mistakes of fact, many of which are well known, now. I'm sure Karl would agree with me when I say no one can be expected to produce flawless work, so mistakes are to be expected.

I'm not sure I detect in Breen's work what Stuart characterizes as scientific method, however. If he means making factual observations, constructing an hypothesis to explain them, and then testing that hypothesis by experimentation, discarding it if proven wrong, adopting it as an argument if shown to be right, then I'm not sure I see much if any there. Breen typically reports on what he sees in various sources, documentary and anecdotal. He gives equal weight to both at times. He relies on his memory for details of sales, coins, varieties, and owners, even if his recollections are of events 40 years in the past. He is uncritical of his sources and rarely puts them into their contexts. He finds connections and causations when there is no verifiable evidence for them. There is little of synthesis in Breen and little that's really original, especially in the colonial sections of his opus magnum. There is almost no testing of conclusions.

I could go on but there's little point in rehearsing Breen's shortcomings (and god help me when someone starts on mine). In the final analysis, Breen did what no one else had before him and if he produced a flawed book, it's one we all use. Breen's personal life has nothing to do with his published numismatic work. But let's not bang the drum too loudly for his apotheosis, either. Or if we must, let's find some other reason than scientific method for his deification."