Item 1965-1975/1 - Three letters from Gay van der Meer

3 items, paper

Three letters from Gay van der Meer:
(a) typescript, single page, dated 14 January 1965, returning to IS his paper entitled "A Scottish halfgroat of Arnold of Oreye" and telling him that it really ought to go in the Revue belge de numismatique rather than the Jaarboek, since Rummen lies within the confines of modern-day Belgium and the article may not receive the attention it deserves in a Dutch periodical. There is a manuscript note at the bottom, in IS's hand [?], with the contact details of Jacqueline Lallemand, Cabinet des Médailles, Bruxelles.
(b) typescript, one folio (recto & verso), dated 28 October 1970, thanking IS for the Exeter catalogue and providing a few additions, which she describes as "not very essential". These include a reference to Edgar's moneyer Æthelnoth in a hoard list in the archives of the SHM [?], a true crux type coin of Æthelraed's moneyer Ælfric in the Stockholm hoard, and a few others. She says that she has not had the opportunity to respond to IS's letter of 3 August due to staff shortages. She also mentions difficulties experienced by a numismatist from the Coin Cabinet of Brno (Czechoslovakia), who was meant to present a lecture in West Germany but was refused entry and is not presenting it in The Hague.
(c) typescript, two full pages on two folios (recto only), dated 3 October 1975, acknowledging receipt of IS's letter and typescript paper, and noting that the sequence of Anglo-Saxon coin types "seems to be definitively established", but most of the letter is turned over to commenting on the typescript and responding to specific questions relating to the typescript in IS's letter. In the paper, she notes that IS makes "no reference to Petersson's variant nomenclature" and draws attention to an unpublished halfpenny that support IS's suggestion that "the jewel cross type in Cnut's name was probably struck during Harthacnut's joint rule with Harold I". In response to queries in the letter, she acknowledges the difficulty in judging from an illustration in the BNJ, vol. 15, p. 4, "whether the Harold coin of Cnut's short cross type is genuine or not". She explains that she described Harthacnut type Ha as "non-English" because the London specimens seem Scandinavian, but she allows that the Norwich specimen, which several authors have judged to be genuine, looks English. She notes coins of this type with problematic legends in Berlin and Stockholm. She also asks whether anyone has "checked the reverses of Hild. Harold 617-19 with Harthacnut 116 of type H and raises questions about the association of an old Harthacnut obverse with the reverse of Harold's last type. She supposes that Harold type Da coins are mules and asks whether there is "any reason why Cnut Ha and Hb should not be English. Finally, she fears that she will never have the time to develop the material that she collected on Sudbury/Southwark into an article.