From https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1921-census?utm_source=fmp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1921&utm_content=UK+1921+Excite&utm_term=404113385&M_BT=67
344807399266
:
"How much will the census cost?
£2.50 for every record transcript and £3.50 for every original record
image.
...
[Even] For all 12-month Pro subscribers, there will be a 10% discount on
any 1921 Census purchases.
...
Is there any way I can view the 1921 Census for free?

Anyone will be able to view the images of the 1921 Census of England and
Wales for free online at The National Archives upon release on 6 January
2022 (00:01 GMT). The original paper census returns will not be
available in the reading rooms. The paper records will be kept secure by
The National Archives at their offsite storage facility and readers at
The National Archives at Kew will be directed to the digital version."

IMO the word "online" is misleading, though probably not intentionally
so: from the rest of the words I've quoted, I presume it means "on a
computer screen if you physically visit TNA" (which is not what "online" normally means, which is "from an internet connection").

I suppose we should welcome the release, and I'm not in any way
minimising the cost of the exercise - but to me these _are_ steep
prices, and I'm unlikely to find the 1921 breaks down any "brick walls"
for my own tree. It might for some, though.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm not a great fan of new technology. I don't change my phone every time the bell rings - Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/1/23-29

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMjcvMTAvMjAyMSAxMTo1NSwgSi4gUC4gR2lsbGl2ZXIgKEpvaG4pIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBG cm9tDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZpbmRteXBhc3QuY28udWsvMTkyMS1jZW5zdXM/dXRtX3Nv dXJjZT1mbXAmdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249MTkyMSZ1dG1fY29udGVu dD1VSysxOTIxK0V4Y2l0ZSZ1dG1fdGVybT00MDQxMTMzODUmTV9CVD02NyANCj4gDQo+IDM0 NDgwNzM5OTI2Ng0KPiA6DQo+ICJIb3cgbXVjaCB3aWxsIHRoZSBjZW5zdXMgY29zdD8NCj4g wqMyLjUwIGZvciBldmVyeSByZWNvcmQgdHJhbnNjcmlwdCBhbmQgwqMzLjUwIGZvciBldmVy eSBvcmlnaW5hbCByZWNvcmQgDQo+IGltYWdlLg0KPiAuLi4NCj4gW0V2ZW5dIEZvciBhbGwg MTItbW9udGggUHJvIHN1YnNjcmliZXJzLCB0aGVyZSB3aWxsIGJlIGEgMTAlIGRpc2NvdW50 IG9uIA0KPiBhbnkgMTkyMSBDZW5zdXMgcHVyY2hhc2VzLg0KPiAuLi4NCj4gSXMgdGhlcmUg YW55IHdheSBJIGNhbiB2aWV3IHRoZSAxOTIxIENlbnN1cyBmb3IgZnJlZT8NCj4gDQo+IEFu eW9uZSB3aWxsIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gdmlldyB0aGUgaW1hZ2VzIG9mIHRoZSAxOTIxIENlbnN1 cyBvZiBFbmdsYW5kIGFuZCANCj4gV2FsZXMgZm9yIGZyZWUgb25saW5lIGF0IFRoZSBOYXRp b25hbCBBcmNoaXZlcyB1cG9uIHJlbGVhc2Ugb24gNiBKYW51YXJ5IA0KPiAyMDIyICgwMDow MSBHTVQpLiBUaGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgcGFwZXIgY2Vuc3VzIHJldHVybnMgd2lsbCBub3QgYmUg DQo+IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBpbiB0aGUgcmVhZGluZyByb29tcy4gVGhlIHBhcGVyIHJlY29yZHMg d2lsbCBiZSBrZXB0IHNlY3VyZSBieSANCj4gVGhlIE5hdGlvbmFsIEFyY2hpdmVzIGF0IHRo ZWlyIG9mZnNpdGUgc3RvcmFnZSBmYWNpbGl0eSBhbmQgcmVhZGVycyBhdCANCj4gVGhlIE5h dGlvbmFsIEFyY2hpdmVzIGF0IEtldyB3aWxsIGJlIGRpcmVjdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBkaWdpdGFs IHZlcnNpb24uIg0KPiANCj4gSU1PIHRoZSB3b3JkICJvbmxpbmUiIGlzIG1pc2xlYWRpbmcs IHRob3VnaCBwcm9iYWJseSBub3QgaW50ZW50aW9uYWxseSANCj4gc286IGZyb20gdGhlIHJl c3Qgb2YgdGhlIHdvcmRzIEkndmUgcXVvdGVkLCBJIHByZXN1bWUgaXQgbWVhbnMgIm9uIGEg DQo+IGNvbXB1dGVyIHNjcmVlbiBpZiB5b3UgcGh5c2ljYWxseSB2aXNpdCBUTkEiICh3aGlj aCBpcyBub3Qgd2hhdCAib25saW5lIiANCj4gbm9ybWFsbHkgbWVhbnMsIHdoaWNoIGlzICJm cm9tIGFuIGludGVybmV0IGNvbm5lY3Rpb24iKS4NCj4gDQo+IEkgc3VwcG9zZSB3ZSBzaG91 bGQgd2VsY29tZSB0aGUgcmVsZWFzZSwgYW5kIEknbSBub3QgaW4gYW55IHdheSANCj4gbWlu aW1pc2luZyB0aGUgY29zdCBvZiB0aGUgZXhlcmNpc2UgLSBidXQgdG8gbWUgdGhlc2UgX2Fy ZV8gc3RlZXAgDQo+IHByaWNlcywgYW5kIEknbSB1bmxpa2VseSB0byBmaW5kIHRoZSAxOTIx IGJyZWFrcyBkb3duIGFueSAiYnJpY2sgd2FsbHMiIA0KPiBmb3IgbXkgb3duIHRyZWUuIEl0 IG1pZ2h0IGZvciBzb21lLCB0aG91Z2guDQoNClllcywgSSB0aG91Z2h0IHRoZSBzYW1lIHdo ZW4gSSBzYXcgdGhlIGNvc3RzLiBJIHByb2JhYmx5IG9ubHkgY2hlY2sgb25lIA0Kb3IgdHdv IGhvdXNlaG9sZHMuDQoNCkhvd2V2ZXIsIGxvb2tpbmcgYmFjayBpdCBzZWVtcyB0aGUgY2hh cmdlcyBhcmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgYXMgd2hlbiB0aGUgMTkxMSANCmNlbnN1cyB3YXMgb3JpZ2lu YWxseSByZWxlYXNlZC4NCg0KSG9wZWZ1bGx5IEFuY2VzdHJ5IHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBiZSBhYmxl IHRvIGFjY2VzcyBhbGwgdGhlIGltYWdlcyBmcm9tIGVhcmx5IA0KSmFuIDIwMjIgdG8gc3Rh cnQgdHJhbnNjcmliaW5nIGFuZCBoYXZlIHRoZWlyIHZlcnNpb24gdXAgYnkgMjAyMyB0byAN CnByb3ZpZGUgY29tcGV0aXRpb24/IFdpbGwgdGhlIGZpbmRteXBhc3QgY2hhcmdlcyB0aGVu IGRyb3Agb3IgYmUgDQppbmNsdWRlZCBpbiBhIHN1YnNjcmlwdGlvbj8NCg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:55:10 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Is there any way I can view the 1921 Census for free?

Anyone will be able to view the images of the 1921 Census of England
and Wales for free online at The National Archives upon release on 6
January 2022 (00:01 GMT). The original paper census returns will not
be available in the reading rooms. The paper records will be kept
secure by The National Archives at their offsite storage facility and
readers at The National Archives at Kew will be directed to the
digital version."

I love this bit:
"The paper records will be kept secure by The National Archives at their offsite storage facility and readers at The National Archives at Kew
will be directed to the digital version. This is to ensure the
preservation of the paper records for years to come."

Ok...so the records will be kept safe, but nobody can actually see
them, so which future generations are going to be able to see them?
Aren't we the future generation?

Love these sites, where they want all of our information for free but
to get anything back costs a substantial amount.




--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:33:47 -0600, Nigel Reed
<sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote:

I love this bit:
"The paper records will be kept secure by The National Archives at their >offsite storage facility and readers at The National Archives at Kew
will be directed to the digital version. This is to ensure the
preservation of the paper records for years to come."

Ok...so the records will be kept safe, but nobody can actually see
them, so which future generations are going to be able to see them?
Aren't we the future generation?

The offsite storage facility is a salt mine in Cheshire. I had had
documents, not census, retrieved from it. I would expect that if a
good case were made census documents would be retrieved. For example
the earlier digitised censuses were created from poor quality
microfilm, which is OK in most cases but a sight of the original might sometimes reveal detail not captured by the microfilm.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:02:59 +0000, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:33:47 -0600, Nigel Reed
<sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote:

I love this bit:
"The paper records will be kept secure by The National Archives at their >>offsite storage facility and readers at The National Archives at Kew
will be directed to the digital version. This is to ensure the
preservation of the paper records for years to come."

Ok...so the records will be kept safe, but nobody can actually see
them, so which future generations are going to be able to see them?
Aren't we the future generation?

The offsite storage facility is a salt mine in Cheshire. I had had
documents, not census, retrieved from it. I would expect that if a
good case were made census documents would be retrieved. For example
the earlier digitised censuses were created from poor quality
microfilm, which is OK in most cases but a sight of the original might >sometimes reveal detail not captured by the microfilm.

Many of those have been dealt with by being re-filmed (or scanned?) in
colour, IME usually the 1841 census.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 00:25:52 +0000, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:02:59 +0000, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:

The offsite storage facility is a salt mine in Cheshire. I had had >>documents, not census, retrieved from it. I would expect that if a
good case were made census documents would be retrieved. For example
the earlier digitised censuses were created from poor quality
microfilm, which is OK in most cases but a sight of the original might >>sometimes reveal detail not captured by the microfilm.

Many of those have been dealt with by being re-filmed (or scanned?) in >colour, IME usually the 1841 census.

Only seen the 1911 census in colour, on Ancestry. Having the others
rescanned would be a big improvement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 00:25:52, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:02:59 +0000, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:33:47 -0600, Nigel Reed
<sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote:

I love this bit:
"The paper records will be kept secure by The National Archives at their >>>offsite storage facility and readers at The National Archives at Kew
will be directed to the digital version. This is to ensure the >>>preservation of the paper records for years to come."

Ok...so the records will be kept safe, but nobody can actually see
them, so which future generations are going to be able to see them? >>>Aren't we the future generation?

OK, it's flowery language, but makes sense to me: I interpret it as
meaning they think the current scanning process is, to within reasonable limits, the best that can be achieved with current technology, but they
are keeping the originals against future improvements. And also in case
they find errors (I can only think of omissions, or undetected scanning
errors) in the current scans.

The offsite storage facility is a salt mine in Cheshire. I had had >>documents, not census, retrieved from it. I would expect that if a
good case were made census documents would be retrieved. For example

Indeed.

the earlier digitised censuses were created from poor quality
microfilm, which is OK in most cases but a sight of the original might >>sometimes reveal detail not captured by the microfilm.

Many of those have been dealt with by being re-filmed (or scanned?) in >colour, IME usually the 1841 census.

Yes, I remember the first time I came across a colour version of an 1841
one, I found it gorgeous.

(Given it was mostly done in pencil - "with the pencil provided", as it
says in the instructions - it's amazing it's still legible at all.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 15:30:32, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote (my responses usually follow points
raised):

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 00:25:52 +0000, Charles Ellson ><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

[]

Many of those have been dealt with by being re-filmed (or scanned?) in >>colour, IME usually the 1841 census.

Only seen the 1911 census in colour, on Ancestry. Having the others
rescanned would be a big improvement.

(I think FMP have it thus too - in fact I think they had it first: I
think it was they who actually scanned it.) I think the 1911 was done in
colour from the start, whereas the others - I think - mostly only appear
in colour where for whatever reason someone has decided they need
re-scanning - presumably the microfilm isn't legible, either judged so
at original scanning or someone's asked for it to be re-scanned. I think
it's nearly always been the 1841, though I can remember seeing (so I
have somewhere) one of the later ones that had rotted, so is very red
(the colour of the fungus or whatever), so must have been done in
colour.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)