Scanned parish records

[Geoff]

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?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Geoff
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.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Geoff
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.

[Geoff]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 12:01:53, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Geoff
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.

[Geoff]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Geoff
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.

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"

Post by Geoff
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).

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:18:47, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"

Post by Geoff
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.)

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:50:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:18:47, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"

Post by Geoff
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.

[Geoff]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:18:47, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"

Post by Geoff
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 !!