Hi Steven and all Although your first statement is correct in that not all PR events are on the IGI from extractions, that is often due to differences between the PRs and BTs , the latter of which is where most extractions are taken from Some time ago (a few years) I was prompted to write to the LDS to ask if they deleted any entries from the IGI and under what circumstances I was told they do not remove entries, extractions in particular and would only remove patron entries where it was found there was a problem, an example cited was if a holocaust victim had been entered If there is an IGI entry where more or different information is found at a later date, the first entry is not removed but a second new entry added with the additional/different data Following this thread I was prompted to ask again The reply was that no entries are removed, and confirms what Charlotte described in her post "IGI explanation" They further said that if any duplicated entry was removed it would not be the extracted one as that is considered a primary source whereas the patron submissions are not Whilst it does not help the OP its been an interesting thread Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Peter, that fact that a record doesn't show as part of an extracted batch > in > the IGI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the original PRs. > Extractions > are not always complete; in particular you have to note the LDS approach > to > duplication. If an extracted record and a user submission are identical, > then the extracted record will be removed from the IGI. So, in this case, > the only way to find out is to look at the PRs themselves. > > (My guess is that it might very well be there, because the bride's age > works > out as 19. When dates are total guesswork, the bride is presumed 21 and > the > groom 25, which is not the case here, so it would appear that some proper > research might have been done.) > > Steven