Showing 11 results

Copy of letter from John Brand to Jeffrey North and copied to Peter Woodhead, typescript, two pages on two folios (recto only), dated 22 February 1978, regarding the 3/4 facing sterlings of Aquitaine. JDB writes that he has heard from PW about JJN's abandoned note on these coins, observing that whereas JJN was seeking to date the coins to about 1305, he has been trying to put them late, after 1330, but not on the basis of any evidence. Most of the remainder of the letter is turned over to JDB's comments on JJN's arguments. The hoard evidence (from Cockburnspath and Carsphairn), according to JDB, suggests that the coins "need not be before 1330". He thinks that JJN has gotten "tangled up in the mutations of the coinage of Philippe le faux-monnoyeur" and suggests that "French regal issues of 1307" cannot be compared "with documents of 1305". He discusses the reading of the unusual combination of legend on Edwardian obols and suggests dating the coins in the 1340s or 1350s rather than the 1320s. He describes the 1325 Tower issues as the maille blanche and "black" double burdelais. The English groat, he says, was always tariffed at four pence while the gros tournois was initially tariffed at twelve deniers tournois under Louis IX but soon lost that relationship. He notes the relative wealth of the documentary evidence for Aquitaine but also highlights discrepancies between the written sources and the numismatic evidence, for example in the "known issues of coin for which no specimens survive". Finally, he says that he has no record of the 3/4 facing sterlings of Aquitaine having been found in France and therefore wonders whether the mint and are of circulation lay elsewhere.

Correspondence of John D. Brand with Jeffrey J. North

Manuscript and typescript papers of John Brand without accompanying correspondence

"Stephen and Numismatic Method", by John Brand, typescript, seventeen pages on as many folios (recto only) including twelve pages of text and five pages of notes, dated December 1978, focusing mainly on the dissection of M. Dolley and K. A. Goddard, 'The A(nglo-)N(orman) spelling "Stifne", "Stefne" and "Stiefne" found in the obverse legends of English coins of Stephen's first substantive type', Proceedings of the Irish Academy, vol. 71C (1971), 19-34.

Letter from John Brand, in manuscript, with typescript attachment, dated "Christmas 1978", entitled 'Michael's malcontent meanderings', 10pp, labelled "Draft" and "Not for Publication". In the letter, JB states that he has written a reply to a recent article of M[ichael] D[olley] in the journal Irish Numismatics (vol. 11, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1978, pp. 278-281), not for publication but with the idea to send it to Michael with a cover letter and copies to a few others. He notes that drafts of the letter and article are enclosed, and he asks IS for his advice and any suggestions he may have.

Four pieces of correspondence between John D. Brand and George C. Boon concerning the Wenallt hoard and its dating, with one attachment:
(a) photocopy of letter from John Brand to George Boon, typescript, single page, dated 11 September 1981, with one attachment, in response to GCB's note on the Wenallt hoard in the July edition of Seaby's Coins and Medals Bulletin. JDB praises the preliminary publication of the hoard takes issue with the date that GCB proposed for the hoard and the significance that he attached to the weights of the coins. There is a manuscript note in the upper margin, in red ink, that reads "Copy to BHIHS". There is also a note from the original typescript in the lower margin to indicate that copies of the letter (and attachment) were also sent to Marion Archibald, Peter Seaby, Robert Seaman and Ian Stewart.
(b) photocopy of short paper, typescript, three pages on three folios (recto only), entitled 'The date of Matilda's coins' by J. D. Brand, undated, attached to the letter described above.
(c) photocopy of letter from George Boon to John Brand, typescript, single page, dated 14 September 1981, in reply to JDB's letter and paper, thanking for the letter and noting that "there is room for disagreement" but stating that he "cannot really accept this advanced dating of Stephen's type I". He further discounts JDB's argument that 800 years of chemical action on the coins while they were in the ground provides insufficient cause to exclude the weight evidence, since that would mean ignoring the weight evidence of "the entire series of English coins". There is a handwritten postscript at the bottom of the page, in the photocopy, concerning the obverse legend HE.MA.IM. on Matilda's coins.
(d) photocopy of letter from John Brand to George Boon, typescript, single page, dated 3 October 1981, thanking GCB for his letter of of 14 September and asks for further clarification of his points of disagreement. He focuses on the HE.MA.IM. legend and questions whether coins with the legend can be dated before the 1140s, favouring the view that it cannot. There is again a manuscript note in the upper margin, in red ink, that reads "Copy to BHIHS" and a further note from the original typescript in the lower margin to indicate that copies of the letter (and attachment) were also sent to Archibald, Seaby, Seaman and Stewart.
(e) photocopy of letter from George Boon to John Brand, typescript, single page, dated 9 October 1981, thanking JDB for his further expression of interest in GCB's SCMB essay. He notes that he will give the hoard more serious consideration in due course but is not yet prepared to discuss it. He nevertheless does state that coin of the Empress Matilda does not have much bearing on the dating or longevity of Stephen's coins of type 1. He says that he needs to take more careful consideration of other evidence, both written and numismatic, before he will be able to commit himself, but he acknowledges that there are many puzzles surrounding the coinage of this period.

Correspondence between John D. Brand and George C. Boon

Two letters from John Brand on British Numismatic Society letterhead:
(a) manuscript, single page, dated 22 May 1982, enclosing photocopies of page proofs of Ian Stewart's article in BNJ 51 with seemingly necessary amendments marked. He asks IS to make any other necessary corrections and return one copy to him.
(b) typescript, single page, dated 24 June 1982, enclosing proofs if pages from Ian Stewart's article on which alterations have been made and advising that two pages have been completely retyped. He refers to the new format [for the BNJ], noting that reactions have "varied completely from 'I prefer it' right through to 'I am dismayed by the new format', which probably means that we have got it about right". He also expresses regret that IS was unable to attend the last BNS meeting, which was marked by debate on Liz Pirie's theories.

Correspondence of John D. Brand with Hugh Pagan

Copy of a letter from John Brand to Hugh Pagan, typescript, two pages on two folios (recto only), dated 19 October 1984, providing "this precis of the position which has evolved" regarding the printing of JDB's Presidential Address to the BNS at its 1982 Anniversary Meeting. JDB explains his view the sequence of events and rationale that led to an editorial decision not to print his Presidential Address in the BNJ. The address dealt with two interrelated issues: (1) allegations of "academic direputability [sic] and intellectual corruption" against the BNS, and (2) "a review of the theory of regular periodic renovation of the coinage in the late Anglo-Saxon and Norman periods". The address was originally intended for publication in BNJ 52, but the death of Michael Dolley in 1983 precluded this because the BNS Council decided to devote the volume to him and JDB agreed to defer publication of his address to BNJ 53. Ultimately, however, the decision was taken not to publish the address because the accusations of academic disrepute and intellectual corruption against which it defended the BNS derived from Michael Dolley, who also championed the theory of periodic renovation of the coinage. According to JDB, it was Stewart Lyon's influence that led to the suppression of the address, based on Lyon's view that the address was overly polemical, but JDB regarded it as his duty as President to defend the Society vigorously against the accusations.