Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch etc)
do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common source? I'm talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions.
Might a piece of a record that is damaged or missing, possibly be
better from another source?
On 26/04/2022 10:38, Geoff wrote:
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch
etc) do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common
source? I'm talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions. Might a piece of a record that is damaged or
missing, possibly be better from another source?
AIUI the scanning process was supervised by the NRO and the copies
licenced to the various companies.
As there is only one original of each record, if it is damaged on
one, it won't be any better elsewhere.
On 26/04/2022 10:38, Geoff wrote:
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch etc)
do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common source? I'm
talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions.
Might a piece of a record that is damaged or missing, possibly be
better from another source?
AIUI the scanning process was supervised by the NRO and the copies
licenced to the various companies.
As there is only one original of each record, if it is damaged on one,
it won't be any better elsewhere.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 12:01:53, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On 26/04/2022 10:38, Geoff wrote:
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch
etc) do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common
source? I'm talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions. Might a piece of a record that is damaged or
missing, possibly be better from another source?
AIUI the scanning process was supervised by the NRO and the copies
licenced to the various companies.
As there is only one original of each record, if it is damaged on
one, it won't be any better elsewhere.
I don't know for parish records, but for censuses, FMP certainly seem
to have different scans - they look like more greyscale, though I
think it means Ancestry used more the microfilm copies (and thus only two-level). At least, that was the case originally; I don't know if
Ancestry have rescanned from different sources. Certainly, I've
sometimes noticed when I've gone back - certainly on Ancestry, not
sure about FMP - to a census I'd already looked at some years
earlier, I've found it's higher resolution than last time, so they do
redo, but I think still just two-level.
I do remember the first time I came across a colour scan of an 1841
page - glorious; I presume it was one where the Microfilm was either
too bad or non-existent. I think that was on Ancestry.
You (Graeme) say the scanning process was supervised by the NRO; in
the case of parish records, I thought it was still going on, as both
seem to announce from time to time (the LostCousins newsletter is a
good place to find such announcements) new areas they have added [he
often includes links direct to the new individual collections, too].
(I get the feeling FMP more so, or maybe they just announce more
often.) Or is it that they've all been scanned, and the announcements
are only made when they've been indexed?
Then there's the Mormons^WLDS^Wfamilysearch. Who have many scans of
their own - particularly the ones (for my ancestry) Durham Diocese
(which covers most of Northumberland, as well as lots of Durham,
Yorkshire, and Cumberland). A lot of theirs (including the above) are
not transcribed and thus not searchable by name, though they are
divided by parish, and within those often by year chunks and/or
record type, so you don't have to wade through that many images.
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch etc)
do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common source? I'm >talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions.
Might a piece of a record that is damaged or missing, possibly be
better from another source?
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"
<onlyme101@btinternet.com> wrote:
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch etc)Parish records can be scanned by (or on behalf of) various
do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common source? I'm >>talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions.
Might a piece of a record that is damaged or missing, possibly be
better from another source?
organisations. Using just Cheshire RO holdings as an example, these
include Dioceses, universities, the LDS and others. Some records can
be re-scanned by the same organisation or another one; this can
involve different lighting methods (e.g. colour instead of the black
and white on older filmings) with the illumination tweaked to cope
with different original materials and inks. Pages (and loose pieces
tucked into them) can occasionally be missed in one filming but not in
others as can the indexing of individual records. Re the LDS alone,
some material has been filmed more than once and later also indexed
more completely (e.g. birth dates added where they were originally
ignored).
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:18:47, Charles Ellson ><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff" >><onlyme101@btinternet.com> wrote:
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch etc)Parish records can be scanned by (or on behalf of) various
do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common source? I'm >>>talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions.
Might a piece of a record that is damaged or missing, possibly be
better from another source?
organisations. Using just Cheshire RO holdings as an example, these
include Dioceses, universities, the LDS and others. Some records can
be re-scanned by the same organisation or another one; this can
involve different lighting methods (e.g. colour instead of the black
and white on older filmings) with the illumination tweaked to cope
with different original materials and inks. Pages (and loose pieces
tucked into them) can occasionally be missed in one filming but not in >>others as can the indexing of individual records. Re the LDS alone,
some material has been filmed more than once and later also indexed
more completely (e.g. birth dates added where they were originally >>ignored).
Probably a good source where there's a bit of the original record
missing or damaged, is the Bishop's Transcripts; although copies,
they're ones made usually within a year or the originals, and while they
can include errors in the copying, they _can_ include corrections.
It's not always obvious whether a scan _is_ of the original or the
Bishop's Transcript; a rough indication is, where they're using the
printed forms, the entry numbers on the original lines tend to be
preprinted on the original but handwritten on the BTs, and where they
aren't, tend to be neater (as they're copied up by the same person all
at once, whereas the originals are added by differing scribes and/or
with varying inks/pens).
(The Durham Diocese ones held by the LDS are I think all BTs.)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:18:47, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"
<onlyme101@btinternet.com> wrote:
Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP, FamilySearch
etc) do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common
source? I'm talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions. Might a piece of a record that is damaged or
missing, possibly be better from another source?
Parish records can be scanned by (or on behalf of) various
organisations. Using just Cheshire RO holdings as an example, these
include Dioceses, universities, the LDS and others. Some records can
be re-scanned by the same organisation or another one; this can
involve different lighting methods (e.g. colour instead of the black
and white on older filmings) with the illumination tweaked to cope
with different original materials and inks. Pages (and loose pieces
tucked into them) can occasionally be missed in one filming but not
in others as can the indexing of individual records. Re the LDS
alone, some material has been filmed more than once and later also
indexed more completely (e.g. birth dates added where they were
originally ignored).
Probably a good source where there's a bit of the original record
missing or damaged, is the Bishop's Transcripts; although copies,
they're ones made usually within a year or the originals, and while
they can include errors in the copying, they can include corrections.
It's not always obvious whether a scan is of the original or the
Bishop's Transcript; a rough indication is, where they're using the
printed forms, the entry numbers on the original lines tend to be
preprinted on the original but handwritten on the BTs, and where they
aren't, tend to be neater (as they're copied up by the same person
all at once, whereas the originals are added by differing scribes
and/or with varying inks/pens).
(The Durham Diocese ones held by the LDS are I think all BTs.)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 78:37:03 |
Calls: | 6,491 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,276,468 |