This paper elaborates on our joint experience of teaching quantitative methods to (mostly) historians since the early 2000s and writing an introductory book on this topic, first in French, then in English, in a revised and expanded version. All along, our intent has been threefold: 1/ to make quantitative methods accessible for all historians, especially those who do not think that such methods are “for them,” because they do not enjoy mathematics or because they study topics that are not traditionally considered as suited to quantification (this is probably the situation of many “new historians of capitalism,” if not many economic historians). We have sometimes written that we wanted to make quantitative history banal, in the sense that it would be published in regular historical journals without being remarked upon for being quantitative; 2/ to contribute to less routine uses of quantification in the social sciences by promoting diversity in methods and imagination in categorization schemes – going beyond “the usual suspects” in terms of sources, variables, and calculations. This was initially important for us because we thought that routine was one of the things that has harmed the first wave of quantitative history (the one associated with cliometrics). Now we are also confronting new routines associated with “digital humanities” and “big data” issues…; 3/ to promote respect of the basic tenets of the historical profession, i.e. principles of source criticism, as the cornerstone of the constitution of data from historical sources. This third goal has become more and more central for us – hence its presence in the title of this working paper. Like our second goal, it is, we think, relevant for economic historians. The first part of this paper begins by explaining where we speak from. As practices of quantification differ between countries and sub-disciplines, we first tell a few words about our experience in learning, then teaching quantitative history, and writing our books. Then we sum up how these trajectories led us to assess issues associated with the first wave of quantification (anachronism, an undue focus on aggregates, insignificant results produced by costly, hierarchical projects), to regret the return of some of these issues under the guise of “big data,” and to find resources in micro-history and sociology to promote an alternative – constructivist, small-scale, experimental quantitative history. The second and third parts of the paper briefly sketches the main principles that we promote in our teaching, with examples in and out of economic history/the history of capitalism. It addresses the transformation of sources into quantifiable data, then discusses data categorization and analysis.