Dutch Type Library, Zwaenenstede 49, 's-Hertogenbosch (2026)

11/07/2025

With two months of enrollment remaining, registrations for the new online OTF Course (https://www.lettermodel.org/OTF-course.html) are steadily coming in. This growing interest highlights the value of a program that not only covers the essential components of type-design education (drawing, spacing, kerning, font formats, and [batch] font production), but also offers a distinctive and advanced approach. At the core of this course is the integration of Frank E. Blokland’s ‘School of Patterning’ methodology with Jürgen Willrodt’s extensive expertise in digital font technology. Together, they combine historical insight and technological precision to provide participants with a well-rounded, research-based, and highly practical learning experience.

The applied methodology is rooted in Frank’s research at Leiden University into the origins of patterning in movable Latin type. Unlike the more common educational model, which begins with letterforms and incrementally refines spacing through iteration, the School of Patterning starts with the creation of typographic structures, from which (details of) letterforms naturally crystallize. This mirrors the emergence of the letters-on-rectangles paradigm during the Renaissance, as supported by Frank’s academic findings.

Importantly, however, the emphasis on pattern formation does not exclude conventional teaching models. After all, students are encouraged to form their own conclusions, guided by both historical insight and practical experience. The same principle applies to the use of type-design and font-production tools. The key is learning how to make one’s judgments objectively quantifiable and how to integrate the strengths of various tools effectively into a coherent workflow.

In short, the School of Patterning is a unique, research-based method, which is proven through over fifteen years of student success in Antwerp (https://typedrawers.com/discussion/635/grand-cru-classes-sprouting-from-antwerp-soil/p1). Combined with Jürgen’s expertise in digital font technology, it offers a comprehensive and forward-looking foundation for contemporary type design.

13/04/2025

New: Origin of Type Frameworks (OTF) Course

The OTF Course, organized by the Dutch Type Library, offers an online practical and theoretical study of type design and font technology. The course is taught via Zoom and delves deeper into what type design and font production actually entails, by evaluating and questioning how to approach the subject, also from less common points of view. This is done by exploring and analyzing the historical, aesthetic, and technical aspects of type design and typography. The aim is a deep understanding of what exactly this comprises and a quantifiable translation of this knowledge into practical applications.

In short, the OTF Course covers all the usual ingredients of type-design education, such as drawing, spacing, kerning, font formats, (automation of) font production, etc. However, on top of that, there is also a unique and advanced approach, based on almost 40 years of experience in vocational type-design education combined with academic research.

The OTF Course is taught by Dr. Frank E. Blokland and Dr. Jürgen Willrodt. Together they have over 80 years of experience in the type industry.

Frank (Leiden, 1959) is a type designer and has been (senior) lecturer in type design at the Royal Academy of Art (KABK) since 1987. From 1995 to 2025 he was senior lecturer and Research Fellow at the Plantin Institute of Typography in Antwerp. Frank founded the Dutch Type Library in 1990 and in October 2016 he successfully defended his PhD dissertation on Renaissance font-production standardization at Leiden University.

Jürgen (Hamburg, 1952) studied physics and mathematics and obtained a PhD in theoretical particle physics in 1976. As a software engineer, he became the lead developer of the IKARUS system since the early 1980s and developed interpolation, autotracing and hinting algorithms, as well as special algorithms for Kanji separation.

An important role in the course is reserved for Frank’s dissertation. In On the Origin of Patterning in Movable Latin Type: Renaissance Standardisation, Systematisation, and Unitisation of Textura and Roman Type he argues that Renaissance typographic patterns were partly determined by requirements for the early font production. Hence, today’s typographic conventions are not only the result of optical preferences predating movable type, but at least as much the result of standardization that eased the Renaissance font production.

The 2025-2026 course starts on October 14, 2025. Registration is possible until September 14, 2025. More information can be found at https://www.lettermodel.org/OTF-course.html

03/10/2024

In the IKARUS-based file system, whose origins date back almost 50 years and which is used in the DTL font tools, glyph data is stored by number. A number is linked via an external character layout (.cha) file to a character (PostScript) name, Unicode code point, and font encoding, among a few other things. The order of the glyph data is essentially independent of the way the data is displayed, although the ‘default’ order can, of course, be the display order. The display of glyphs need not be limited to a single window. We use two glyph windows per font in DTL FoundryMaster, from and into which glyphs can be opened directly for editing, copied, and pasted.

Copying within glyph databases can be done by selecting source and target slots only, but also by glyph number. In the latter case, characters can simply be pasted into a database (without selecting anything) and the glyphs will overwrite existing slots by their number or otherwise be added to the database. It makes sense to organize the glyph data properly, i.e., to use an internal logic that, for example, is easy to remember. However, since the form of organization is in the hands of the user, the order of the glyphs can have any logic of its own. It must be said that creating an associated character layout file is somewhat time consuming and, above all, has to be done without any errors.

However, even the names of the characters and the Unicode code points are not fixed and can easily be overwritten in generated fonts during the post-production process in DTL OTMaster –to the extent that that makes sense, of course.

29/02/2024

The Dutch Type Library has been active in the type business for 34 years. DTL is an ‘indie’ type foundry in every respect: after all, no third parties are involved in the sale of fonts and DTL uses proprietary software to create exclusive digital typefaces (https://www.fontmaster.nl). The company is a kind of Galapagos island in the ocean of the type industry.

Today, font production is often approached from the type-designer’s point of view, that is, as the final step in the type-design process. In the most popular font editors, one basically just presses a button and the fonts are generated. The emphasis is clearly on the design part and the more technical matters are often cleverly hidden. However, one could consider type design as the first step in the font-production process, in line with archetypal font production (see also: https://www.lettermodel.org). That requires a different mindset and associated organization: for example, one does not want to manually subset GPOS (class) and GSUB features per font. Moreover, one wants to have full control over every technical aspect.

Generating a few fonts is, of course, different from batch processing multiple fonts in different formats. Moreover, mindset and therefore workflow are largely determined by the tools one uses. At DTL, however, the tools are largely based on the preferred workflow. DTL’s IKARUS-based file system (Figure 1) provides control over every detail of font production and enables batch processing of font data. This also implies that all supporting files, such as the OpenType Layout features, kern-class files, encoding files, and related scripts, must be defined by the end user.

DTL’s font-production environment is that of multiple binaries and text files, which may make things more complicated at first glance, but ultimately provides flexibility, consistency, and reproducibility (Figure 2). The binaries are BE (2-byte) and IB (4-byte) for cubic Bézier splines, and QQ (2-byte) and IQ (4-byte) for quadratic splines. The exactness of the conversion from cubic to quadratic Bézier curves can be checked and controlled (Figures 3 and 4). For web fonts, for example, we use a looser conversion (combined with fewer and somewhat wider kerning pairs, the latter in particular for punctuation). In addition, contours can, of course, be edited in both formats. Furthermore, anything that requires multiple actions is script-based, and if multiple scripts are required, if possible, they are in turn generated by scripts.

We are happy on our Galapagos Island, where we can work on fonts every day –in our own way.

24/09/2023

The astronomical fall of 2023 has begun: a perfect time for some historical speculation, I reckon. As you may know, I am a bit into standardization and systematization in the Renaissance and Baroque type-production processes (see also: https://www.lettermodel.org). So the following musings may not come as a complete surprise.

The stem division as the basis for the production of a gauge as shown in the first attached image is a bit speculative. After all, it is an assumption based on measurements of type-foundry artifacts for which there seems to be no historical documentation to support it. However, in the case of the depicted Gros Canon Romain created by the talented Flemish punchcutter Hendrik van den Keere (ca.1540–1580) in 1573, the definition of a unit as one fourth of the stem thickness (image 2) results in 42 units from the top of the ascenders to the bottom of the descenders and is therefore equivalent to the division for the body that Joseph Moxon (1627–1691) mentions in Mechanick Exercises (1683–1685). The same is the case with Van den Keere’s La Plus Grande Romaine, type carved in boxwood from 1575 (the next two images).

Moxon defines the body as ‘[…] is meant, in Letter-Cutters, Founders and Printers Language, the Side of the Space contained between the Top and Bottom Line of a Long Letter.’ An example of such a long letter, according to Moxon, is the capital /J. About ten years ago I cut and pasted the unitization in Moxon's engravings from Mechanick Exercises and placed the units on the stem interval of the lowercase (fifth image). I have not changed the distances between the letters in the engravings. Moxon uses a division of the body into ‘seven equal parts’ of six units each. Four such units seem to fit the lowercase stem width. The stem interval, i.e., the distance from stem to stem, seems perfectly supported by the unitization system. It is a logic I expect based on my measurements and distillations of historical type-foundry artifacts.

Interestingly, body sizes in the past, such as Ascendonica, Vraie Parangonne, and Gros Canon, in general included leading. Ultimately, the aperture of the mould defined the body size, and normally it was larger than the distance from the upper ascender to the lower descender. Therefore, a translation of these sizes into points, as presented for example at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_point-size_names, is a bit tricky, because nowadays we use the point system to designate the body basically on the same way like Moxon’s top-to-bottom line of a ‘Long Letter’ definition. In this way one might get the impression that the relevant historical body sizes for text purposes contain a slightly larger type and thus larger x-heights than we are used to today. However, the translation to points on the aforementioned Wikipedia page is, of course, useful to show the mutual relationship between the different historical body sizes.

One can imagine that for reasons of consistency and because of technical complexities in the Renaissance and Baroque, no translation into dimensions in thumbs, feet, and phalanges was made by punchcutters and typefounders. On the other hand, however, one could argue that the use of these measurement systems could explain the local measurable differences in body sizes. That said, these can, for example, also be explained by a reproduction process related to copying existing letters. First of all, one must realize that it was not the punchcutter that ultimately determined the body size on which to cast the type, but the caster, or rather the mould selected for the job by the caster.

The mould itself could have been the result of a copying process: existing foundry type cast on a certain body size could be used to define a new mould for the same body size (warning: this is speculation). Translating to thumbs, feet, or whatever seems pointless here to say the least. That said, such a copying system can inevitably lead to minor deviations. After all, the source model could, for example, have been cast in a mould that allowed certain tolerances, because it had become somewhat unreliable over time due to intensive use. Copying could then be seen as standardizing errors.

The measuring systems outside the type foundries may have been superfluous in this case, because there was an intrinsic way of measuring that always worked, whether the type was bolder or lighter; variations caused, for example, by the transfer of soot images made of foundry type to pieces of steel for new punches. It could always be distilled in the same way, meaning that letterform images created an intrinsic unitization –of which they in turn were the result– that could be used for reproduction and modifications. In other words; with every image of a letter always came in principle a standardized measurement system that could be used for the production of a gauge.

However, as mentioned, this is for now speculation…

Frank

19/06/2023

Preparations have started for DTL PlusGrande, a revival of Hendrik van den Keere’s La Plus Grande Romaine. This wood-carved display type from 1575 is related to VdK’s Gros Canon Romain from 1573, which formed the basis for DTL GrosCanon https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/GCR_Project.html. Handmade working drawings of enlarged images of the La Plus Grande Romaine are manually digitized in IKARUS format using a lens cursor. The latter has in contrast with a mouse an absolute position in relation to an accompanying tablet and is used for entering contour points. That may sound a bit old-fashioned: the question is why would one use this method instead of drawing/sculpturing directly on a screen?

At DTL we still draw a lot on paper and subsequently use IKARUS for the conversion to digital contours. For example, the many years of development of DTL Fell https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/PDF/Type_specimen/DTL_Fell_ts.pdf, started with such drawings. However, the Dutch Type Library with its proprietary non-mainstream font-production software is a kind of Galápagos Island in the métier. In addition, DTL produces typefaces with the speed of a giant tortoise, resulting in what we call ‘slow fonts’. The development of DTL Fell, for example, ultimately took 25 years. The reasoning behind the analog approach is briefly described in the booklet ‘Reﬂections on Type and Typography [Related Matters]’ https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl//Downloads/PDF/Reflections_on_Type_and_Typography.pdf, from which is quoted below.

Times are undoubtedly changing and new technologies make other design and production methods possible. Whereas before the rise of desktop publishing (but after the times of the punchcutter) typefaces were drawn completely on paper first, today most type designers work directly on screen in Bézier format. Whether this is a deliberate choice or is simply dictated by the digital font editors, remains the question. After all, workflows are in general adapted to the structure of the tools and not vice versa. However, one could argue that there is no better way to learn the tension of curves, the (relation between the) quality of contours and counters, and to understand that a speedy process is not always the best way to preserve the highest quality, than drawing with pencil, pen, and brush.

The fact that in the métier of the type designer drawing on paper has become less and less common, might be the result of a lack of training and accordingly of the specific skills needed for analog drawing. The requirements for a type-design job should deﬁne what the best tool for digitizing is, however. In some cases drawing on paper can be more appropriate than sculpturing contours on the screen. It is quite easy and therefore tempting, to copy letter parts in Bézier format, but less easy to draw tiny and delicate differences on the screen. For making revivals this could result in the loss of details. For the conversion of analogue drawings into digital contours the IKARUS system, which marked the start of digital typography in the 1970s, can still be used https://www.fontmaster.nl//history.html. The famous type collections of the major companies in the type market, for example, Monotype, Linotype, Berthold, and ITC, were manually (‘hand’) digitized in this format.

At the Dutch Type Library we believe that in today’s vocational type education, the IKARUS system should be demonstrated still and students should have the opportunity to play around with it. If students decide not to use it and consequently to sculpture directly on the screen, that would be a decision based on experience and knowledge. It also makes sense to show the IKARUS system if one wants to place the current digital font technology in a historical context, and to adapt one’s tools to the specific requirements for a type-design job.

The ‘a-b-c’ drawing shown is based on an italic by the sixteenth-century French punchcutter François Guyot (†1570). More than 25 years ago these were created for DTL VandenKeere in the evening hours. They were made with pencil, pen, and occasionally brush (one can see traces of white paint) and consequently manually digitized in the IKARUS format, utilizing a lens cursor https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/DTLVandenKeere.html.

22/01/2021

The structure of digital type is in principle identical to that of movable type. The quintessence of the paradigm of characters on rectangles, which maintain the balance of white space regardless of their order, has not changed over time. With type design, the added value of someone’s idiom can only be estimated when the underlying basis has been clearly mapped out.

The most important aspect of movable type is that the white space is evenly distributed between the characters –regardless of their order. At the same time, the black shapes must form a pattern, which is, of course, inseparable from the white-shaped pattern. A calligrapher controls this system by dividing the white area with black strokes. The type designer (formerly punchcutter) must chop this pattern by deﬁning the boundaries of the rectangles between the black strokes. This process is essentially completely artiﬁcial with regard to writing: the positioning of characters on rectangles while preserving the white-space balance gave a new dimension and introduced new technical constraints during the Renaissance.

The ‘Sum of Particles’ diagram lists the aspects that determine the rules (conventions) for type within the Latin script. These rules may overlap with those of other scripts, especially those related to some degree with the Latin script, such as Cyrillic and Greek. The diagram is intended as a guide to ﬁnd out exactly what type design entails. The last two rows show ‘formalization’ and ‘idiom’ respectively. The aspects shown in the previous four rows are preconditions for usability: if a typeface does not meet these rules, it could be considered ‘illegible’.

The degree to which formalization is required to improve usability may depend on how one is conditioned. If the conditioning model was the sophisticated and reﬁned type of Robert Granjon and Claude Garamont, the user will undoubtedly prefer it to, for example, the Sweynheym and Pannartz type used in ‘Opera’ from 1469. After all, the latter is undoubtedly much rougher. The details in Granjon’s and Garamont’s work, in turn, differ, although they used almost identical underlying frameworks. The differences are too small to think that they would make a difference in usability. The idioms of these two master punchcutters form a layer of varnish on top of the archetypal Renaissance models.

On the right side of the attached image, one can see a column with a gradual transition from the geometric font model (see also: https://www.lettermodel.org) to variants that are increasingly formalized and eventually become shapes in which idiom begin to appear. It can be interesting to ﬁnd out exactly where the type is considered useful and where the (excess of?) varnish of the idiom appears.The extent to which idiom contributes to usability may be up for debate: after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If type design can be described as ‘Sum of Particles’ and the usability is determined by the way these factors are dealt with, then one could say that in line with this legibility is determined by the same factors. After all, it is highly unlikely that in particular Jenson and Griffo did any legibility research before developing their archetypal models for roman and italic (Griffo) type. Neither these two eminent punchcutters, nor their Renaissance peers, appear to have explored the physiological structure of the human visual system in relation to type. The fact that light hitting the retina excites photoreceptors was no doubt completely unknown to them.

Moreover, one could argue that legibility is relative to (the rules for) type models. What we like in the context of the Latin script, rhythmically and harmonically, may be completely absent in other scripts. The same goes for the balance of white space between characters. So, instead of looking for the holy grail of legibility through mainly empirical research, the distillation of the rules deﬁned by the archetypal punchcutters, as laid down in the ‘Sum of Particles’ diagram, could perhaps be applied in an inverse way.

In the third chapter of the booklet ‘Reﬂections on Type and Typography [Related Matters]’ (https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/Downloads/PDF/Reflections_on_Type_and_Typography.pdf) one can read more about the legibility aspect.

22/11/2020

In recent weeks a number of websites hosted on DTL’s VPS, including https://www.fontmaster.nl and https://www.lettermodel.org, have been made static. They were originally created with WordPress, but this environment seems a bit too sensitive to hacks (luckily we never encountered this directly). After all, WordPress’ CMS-based structure is quite open, especially because of its themes and plugins. At the time, however, the WP solution made sense and served its purpose. Now the sites are static, they are no doubt less vulnerable for hacking and potentially compromising the DTL server. And they are *much* faster.

Working with WordPress was an exception: for example, the https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl (the framework is 21 years old), the vintage FontMaster website (which can still be found at https://www.fontmaster.nl/root/legacy.html), and the more recent https://www.exquisitefonts.com websites are largely built from scratch. However, now the previously WP sites are static, one can conclude that as such it is not a bad way to set up a website after all. The code has been cleaned by removing redundant bits, improving ﬁle hierarchy and organization, and by modifying and restoring related links.

That said, it cannot be ruled out that there are still inconsistencies here and there: these will then be adjusted and improved shortly. It is therefore always possible that the server occasionally hiccups when switching to a new version.

10/08/2020

(This is a cross-post [https://www.facebook.com/lettermodeller])

Earlier today Hugh Macfarlane sent a few more photos of the slightly modiﬁed –the registers in particular– replica of the ‘Giet Instrument 48’ type mould, which he recently ﬁnished for DTL’s [Gros] Canon Project https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/GCR_Project.html. The ‘GI48’ is probably the oldest surviving type mould dating from around the second half of the 16th century. It is part of the illustrious collection of Renaissance type-foundry material in the Museum Plantin-Moretus, Antwerp.

The ﬁrst part of the DTL [Gros] Canon Project included the digitization of three types by the Flemish Renaissance punchcutter Hendrik van den Keere (ca.1540–1580): Gros Canon Flamande https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/DTLFlamande.html (textura type, 1571), Gros Canon Romain https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/DTLGrosCanon.html (roman type, 1573), and Canon d’Espaigne https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/DTLSpanishCanon.html (rotunda type, 1574). The latter is almost ready for release, which will complete then the ﬁrst part of the project.

The reproduction of the historical type mould is the second part of the project, along with master punchcutter Stan Nelson manufacturing a small number of punches based on DTL’s aforementioned digital revivals (taking into account the measured standardization) and striking related matrices. The matrices will be adapted to the constraints of the mould. The goal is to use the ‘GI48’ replica to cast the type and to distribute the foundry type to customers who purchased the project’s digital revivals.

The DTL [Gros] Canon Project started several years ago. There is no rush: the Dutch Type Library is probably one of the slowest font producers ever. For example, the meticulous development of DTL Fell began in 1997 and we presented the first results at the ATypI Reading conference that year. The first range of OpenType ‘Standard’ fonts is now available https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/DTLFell.html and around Christmas this year OpenType ‘Pro’ fonts with special titling sets and ornaments will be released. Probably.

18/06/2020

Recently on the ATypI membership list a question was asked about ‘how at each turn or technology innovation some typefaces loss some of their quality in order to “fit” the new technology standards.’ Almost immediately Monotype Bembo was presented as a classical example. However, the question is then: of what exactly?

As I argue in my dissertation, the archetypal models, such as Garamont’s, are themselves the result of adaptations to the constraints of the Renaissance type production. The assembly required for the Monotype caster, for example, may not have differed much from the initial standardization and systematization. After all, the use of a limited number of widths based on the intrinsic standardization in the underlying written model, as laid down in LeMo, was part of the archetypal type production. The layout for the Monotype ‘hot metal’ casters roughly matched this.

Perhaps more interestingly, many deviations from the archetypal models are *not* influenced by technological turns. Although Jan van Krimpen complained in his Memorandum (IIRC) that he was unable to hollow serifs due to limitations of Monotype’s type production, especially in later times there was and is no need to, for example, straighten stems like in Adobe Garamond. After all, you won’t ﬁnd many straight stems in the Renaissance models, if any. This smoothing (‘loss [of] some of their quality’) has nothing to do with technical constraints, but everything with limited insights.

For example, the matrices of Garamont’s Gros Canon Romain (top image: x-height is ca.5.25 mm), which was extremely widespread across Western Europe from around 1560 and is attributed to Garamont in the Frankfurt 1572, 1581, and 1590 inventories, clearly show concave stems. This effect can also be seen in the letters of his peers, such as Robert Granjon.

One should keep in mind that revivals are by definition an interpretation, which will show as much of the style period in which the original foundry type was cut as of the time (Zeitgeist) in which the revival was made (see also: https://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/Downloads/PDF/Reflections_on_Type_and_Typography.pdf).

The two variations of the /n at the bottom of the image show straight stems on the left and tapered toward the center of the x-height on the right. The left /n was created a few years ago by a student of mine and I used it to quickly demonstrate how to position contour points to get a smooth transition from the arch and serifs to the stems.

The effect of curved stems on the construction can also be seen in this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkZAmTYDEyc, for which I created an ad-hoc variable font.

Frank E. Blokland

08/04/2020

When capitals are applied to, for example, book covers or title pages they are often simply placed side by side, using the default ﬁtting (spacing) of the font. However, this ruins the intrinsic pattern of the capitals, because the ﬁtting is only suitable in relation to the lowercase. Let’s take a more detailed look at what is happening and how to improve the spacing of capitals.

As mentioned, the standard ﬁtting of the capitals is based on the patterning of the lowercase. In the attached image, the capital /H and /A are placed between lowercase letters in the two top rows. The distance from the stem of the /l to the ﬁrst stem of the /H is proportional to that of the /n–/n and /n–l. The distance is measurably slightly larger, partly to suit the slightly larger weight of the capital /H and partly to make the spacing problem not too large if only capital letters are set. In case of the /A, the spacing cannot be made tighter than the serifs of this capital allow. Consequently, the amount of space within the lowercase x-height is optically and measurably greater than between the /l and /H.

If one typeset only capitals, the spacing will be a mess. After all, the X-height of the capitals is now taken into account and then the /A shows a lot of space on both sides. The distance between the /H and /I is not only very tight in relation to that of the two /A’s, but also in relation to the space within the /H. The lowercase /n, used for the spacing here, has a counter related to that of the /o, but also to that of the /b, c/, /d, etc. After al, to create a pattern, the shapes and sizes of the black and white (counter) parts must be closely related. The same applies to capitals: the space in the /H is related to that of the /O but also to that of the /A, /C, /D, etc. So, if the type designer does his/her job well, the widths of the capitals is related to the ‘fencing’ deﬂned by the /H. If, for example, the /L does not ﬁt this pattern, the design is by deﬁnition wrong.

The problem of the uneven spacing of the capital letters is that it requires editing. If done manually, this is not only a lot of work, but also prone to errors. One solution would be to limit the use of capitals. Another solution could be to use small caps instead. These are by definition less tightly and more evenly distributed, because their size and intrinsic spacing are more related to that of the lowercase. In principle, tracking the small caps with a ﬁxed amount of units will be sufﬁcient.

Some typefaces will have a special OpenType Layout feature for capital spacing: ‘cpsp’. In most cases this does not more than some tracking, which basically dilutes the problem a bit.

Dutch Type Library

11/07/2025

13/04/2025

03/10/2024

29/02/2024

24/09/2023

19/06/2023

22/01/2021

22/11/2020

10/08/2020

18/06/2020

08/04/2020

Adres

Telefoon

Website

Meldingen

Contact

Snelkoppelingen

Delen

Type