• Scanned parish records

    From Geoff@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 26 09:38:11 2022
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Graeme Wall@21:1/5 to Geoff on Tue Apr 26 12:01:53 2022
    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.

    --
    Graeme Wall
    This account not read.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff@21:1/5 to Graeme Wall on Tue Apr 26 12:57:13 2022
    Graeme Wall wrote:

    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.

    Many thanks.
    That saved me a lot of searching. It will have to remain a missing
    piece of a jigsaw!
    Geoff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 26 13:52:33 2022
    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.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    "Look, if it'll help you to do what I tell you, baby, imagine that I've got a blaster ray in my hand." "Uh - you _have_ got a blaster ray in your hand." "So you shouldn't have to tax your imagination too hard." (Link episode)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 26 13:05:39 2022
    J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

    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.

    That is interesting. It is between Ancestry & FamilySearch that I was interested. A record I am looking for I believe, is probably on a page
    of which half has been torn out looking at the Ancestry record, and I
    was hoping it might have been added somewhere in the FS scanning.
    I don't mind ploughing through the images on FS if I think there is a
    chance.

    Geoff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Ellson@21:1/5 to onlyme101@btinternet.com on Tue Apr 26 20:18:47 2022
    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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to charlesellson@btinternet.com on Tue Apr 26 22:50:38 2022
    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.)
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    I hope you dream a pig.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Ellson@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Tue Apr 26 23:45:14 2022
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:50:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    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.)

    Parish registers tend to be a continuous record with no breaks at the
    year end while BT's are usually collections of records arranged in
    single years with the first record of the year at the top of the page.
    I think I have only seen one BT which was recorded on the same page
    layout as a pre-printed parish register.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Geoff@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 27 08:58:15 2022
    J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

    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.)

    Thanks for this. Unfortunately, due to Sod's Law, the B.Ts for Norfolk
    start in 1687 and the marriage I am looking for was probably 1686 !!

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