Field Calculation Error in Mailmerge

I have a very simple mailmerge which consists of a letter and date
from a word table. There are only two fields, one of the address and
one for the salutation. When I do the merge I get a message saying '
field calculation error in record no. #' The merge works okay, but
this message appears for every record.

I googled and found a few topics on this but nothing relevant to me,
ie I am not using any IF or ASK fields. I recreated the data to test,
into excel and made a field for name, add1 etc and that produced the
same result which leads me to believe the problem is with my letter
template. The only other fields in this are some form text fields and
a create date field. I have used this letter template for many
mailmerges in the past and have not had this problem. Can anyone help?

On Apr 18, 9:54 am, Jacqui <jacqueline.ful....DeleteThis@semplefraser.co.uk>
wrote:
> I have a very simple mailmerge which consists of a letter and date
> from a word table. There are only two fields, one of the address and
> one for the salutation.  When I do the merge I get a message saying '
> field calculation error in record no. #' The merge works okay, but
> this message appears for every record.
>
> I googled and found a few topics on this but nothing relevant to me,
> ie I am not using any IF or ASK fields.  I recreated the data to test,
> into excel and made a field for name, add1 etc and that produced the
> same result which leads me to believe the problem is with my letter
> template.  The only other fields in this are some form text fields and
> a create date field.   I have used this letter template for many
> mailmerges in the past and have not had this problem.  Can anyone help?

I found the solution: If my letter goes to a second page there's a
STYLEREF field on page two which picks up the recipent name. In this
case the merge doesn't use the recipient name style in the address
block and as the letter was not a two page it didn't seem important,
obviously the merge process was looking for this field however.