Item 1962/1 - Three letters from Herbert Schneider

3 items, paper

Three letters of Herbert Schneider:
(a) typescript, three pages on two folios, dated from Antwerp on 11 April 1962, recounting the theft of thirty-three of his coins that he had left at Spink's for a V&A exhibition. He takes a little comfort in the fact that the coins were generally selected for their beauty and condition rather than rarity, with the result that only three must be regarded as irreplaceable. It would be easier to bear, he says, if he were assured that the coins survived and were not simply consigned to the melting pot. He mentions an enclosure of "the relevant passage" on the Briot angel from his paper on the angels of Charles I, but the enclosure is not longer attached. He acknowledges an error in his letter of 18 December, noting that the figure of 285,000 coins as impossible for output from an obverse die and correcting it to 25,000. He mentions another enclosure of a copy of a recent letter from Potter [see JCPP/Stewartby/1/3/POTTER-SCHNEIDER/1962/1], and discusses the views of Potter in regard to die output for sovereigns. He concludes by asking whether anyone has ever checked the references of Ethel Stokes ["Tables of bullion coined from 1377 to 1550", NC, vol. 9, no. 33 (1929), pp. 27-69?], simply because so many scholars use them as if they were gospel.
(b) typescript, four full pages on two folios (recto & verso), dated from Luxembourg on 27 April 1962, thanking IS for letter of Good Friday and responding to the points raised in the letter following the publication of the first part of his paper on the Tower Gold of Charles I. There are detailed comments focused mainly on Briot about (i) pattern, concerning the definition of what constitutes a pattern coin; (ii) lyk impression, describing "the obverse of the ordinary Tower angels of Charles I" as "a logical continuation of the group III angels of Henry VII"; (iii) Balfour's remark [that angels were struck to meet the king's need for "touch-pieces"], to which Stevenson assigned a numismatic significance where there was none; (iv) time factor, about the amount of time it would have taken Briot to prepare new punches and dies upon his arrival in Edinburgh; (v) lettering, considering whether Briot included the letter punches for his private mill coinage of 1631/1633 among the tools that were sent to Edinburgh; and (vi) striking, on the quality of the striking on some of Briot's Scottish coins. HS questions Stevenson's attribution of Briot's angel to Scotland, outlines the reasons for his doubts and says that the matter should be left open. In a PS, he asks IS not to mention to Potter that he has written him a four-page letter, since he already owes Potter three.
(c) typescript, three pages on two folios, dated from Antwerp on 24 May 1962, acknowledging that Philip Grierson had written to him about the Continental prototype for Henry Tudor's earliest sovereign. Since his own views about privy marks on the sovereign coinage of Henry VII are diametrically opposed to orthodox views, he expected "a major rocket from Cambridge" but was instead gratified to learn that PG had arrived at much the same conclusions. HS says that Blunt has told him about the Winstanpotterly paper on Henry Tudor's coinage now being ready and wonders how they dealt with the sovereigns. He then returns to the subject of Briot's angel, stressing that the question of whether it was struck in the Tower or in Scotland should be left open. He nevertheless wonders whether Briot might have taken his existing London dies with him to Edinburgh and used them to produce angels at short notice for the touching ceremony. The letter concludes with a discussion of Potter.