Hello, I agree with Matt and when I first saw it, read it as he has done. Different items are often linked under the same "Item" such as: a joint stool, a porringer and some old lumber so I don't think we should assume the armour was silver. Best wishes, Margaret. In a message dated 21/10/2008 08:25:30 GMT Daylight Time, mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes: <<I've just received the 1689 will of Richard Sherlock, DD, Winwick, Lancashire, and was fascinated to see in the inventory: Itm in Silver plate, one Body suit of Armour Buff Coat & c - £30=14=10 Was armour really/normally made of silver plate? It seems a very expensive piece of 'kit' to have?>> Hello Yvonne, 'plate' at this period almost always meant tableware, so I think that should be read as "in Silver plate [and] one Body suit of Armour, Buff Coat etc". In other words there were two separate items, his silver plate and his armour. As someone else said, a Doctor of Divinity might have owned military equipment because he had inherited it, but at this date it is more likely that he owned it because he was obliged, like all other men above a certain level of wealth, to provide and maintain armour and weapons for the local militia . It seems he was wealthy enough to have been required to provide a cavalryman's buff coat and armour. Matt