TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2003-07 > 1058042112
From: "Linda C. Koehler" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:35:27 -0400
It is my understanding that all of March is considered the first month of
the new year, at least for Quaker dating. So I would be very surprised to
find March given as a dual date in an original Quaker record, since there
is no question as to which year it would be in. In the example you give,
"10 March 1750/1751" (assuming that the person writing the date intended
dual dating as done for January and February), a Quaker would write the
date simply as 10th day 1st month 1751.
"1st month 1750" would definitely be March 1750, not 1749 or 1751, and
not expressed as a dual date.
At 01:42 PM 7/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>TMG-D Digest Volume 03 : Issue 1252
> #12 Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux ["Darrell A. Martin"
>Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:57:20 -0500
>From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
>Subject: Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>At 10:43 AM 7/12/03 -0400, Peter B.Hill wrote:
>>Until 1752, Quakers (and much of the rest of the world) considered March
>>as first month, which makes November 9th month, December 10th month,
>>January 11th month and February 12th month.
>In the few examples I have of Quaker dating, I put the "standard"
>Gregorian date in the TMG tag, and put the date as recorded in the
>Citation Detail. I do have a question, though. How would a Quaker date in
>March be recorded? For example, if we have a OS/NS dual-year-dated
> 10 March 1750/1751
>what would the equivalent Quaker date read? Is it 1st month or 13th month?
>If we have an incomplete Quaker date
> 1st month 1750
>would that be converted to year 1749/1750, to 1750/51, or would a date in
>this format not occur in Quaker records?
>An inquiring mind wants to know.
>Darrell Allen MARTIN
>a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois
|Re: [TMG] Quaker dates redux by "Linda C. Koehler" <>|