> At 01:43 19/02/2008, you wrote: > > > "the foreparte of the George of Dyamountes the Mayle > > > of the curates and Rivet of the same of Siluer half > > > gilte with a sworde in his hand of gold a lozenged > > > Dyamounte like a sheelde and a Dragon of gold weying > > > together iij oz di di quarter" > > > > > > "a little George of gold to hang at a Collar of > > > garters weying one ounce quarter di" > > > > > > Thanks for any help with this. > > > > > > Kimiko > > > >Joan, I believe, has the right explanation for the above citation, but > >be careful. In some cases, a reference will be clear that the odd > >units refer to money rather than weight. Such as: > > > >'Item for the lynyng and mendyng of 2 vardgales 14d.' 1555. Petrie Archives > > > >In this example, the costs are is 14d, where the d is denarius = a > >unit of money. I'm not clear how or why the Brits kept using d to > >refer to the old shilling coin. Perhaps it was a silver coin just as > >the roman denarius was? I leave to someone from the other side of the > >pond to explain further. > > I believe that "d" is actually pence, not > shillings, in English money. We used to have, > prior to decimalisation on 15/2/71, a system of > pounds, shillings and pence, shortened to £.s.d. > Therefore the "14d" mentioned above is actually > 14 pence, not shillings. I will try and check the > origins of the notation - but am busy, so it might take a while. > > Suzi
Thanks Suzi (and nice to hear from you!) Were there silver pennies in the 16th c? Still stuck on the denarius thing, ya see, And BTW, Kimiko, that's one big diamond & George jewel that you've got described there. The three oz of gold alone makes a pricey bauble at today's rates. --cin Cynthia Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
