Thanks. Paul On Dé Céadaoin, 14 Samhain, 2012, at 13:36, jeff <jap1@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> The date says "the 14th 11th mo 1694" >> >> So, would that mean Jan 14 1695? > > You are correct that the date would have been January 14th. However, the people at the time would have considered it 1694. You are strongly encouraged to maintain the original format of "the 14th 11th mo 1694" to avoid any future confusion. > > jeff palmer - jap1@peoplepc.com > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: idirlion@me.com >> Sent: Nov 14, 2012 4:14 PM >> To: "QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com" <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> >> Subject: [Q-R] dates >> >> I have an inventory for a prominent, late Quaker, Bernard Devonish, in New Jersey. >> >> The date says "the 14th 11th mo 1694" >> >> So, would that mean Jan 14 1695? >> >> That is, would the - civil - recording of an inventory after someone's death be written using Quaker dating? >> >> Since Bernard died in January 1695...this is what I assume. >> >> Is that right? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Paul >