In reply to the partial message below, John is correct in that BK appears to only recognise the year as 1955 and ignores the Quarter. Other examples I have all do the same -- the Quarter appears to be ignored but the year is recognised. I have BK set to recognise dates in DD/MM/YYYY format and whilst it tells me that "Q1 1955" is an invalid date format it does recognise the year as 1955 for calculation purposes. This is fine for my purposes. The BK calculations use the correct year and the Q1 prefix tells ME that I obtained the information from the UK BMD index. I record the full GRO index as my source under "comments for this citation" which gives me the opportunity to obtain a copy of the certificate if I find it necessary in the future without having to look at the index again. I have a large number of ancestors where I have recorded the birth, marriage or death as "Qx YYYY", so I guess I shall be sticking to this format. I am grateful to those who have responded to my way of doing things; it has made me test it out and leaves me satisfied that my method works (at least for me) if not entirely accurately. Many thanks and all the best with your research. Malcolm Webb mfwebb2005@btinternet.com <mailto:mfwebb2005@btinternet.com> -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) Sent: 25 February 2012 12:44 To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] Why "invalid date"? Also quarters. >Though looking at your example again, Malcolm, you say 'I have an >accurate birth date of a great aunt as 26 May 1872 and a death date as >Q1 1955. Her age in the BK database is shown as "83+/-" and in the >family group sheet it says "died at age 83".'> > >I suspect BK is getting the 1955, but not the Q1 - have you other >examples (with different quarters)? Because if she died in Q1 1955, that >would be _before_ her 83rd birthday, which by usual convention (in >England anyway, and 'I think'), would be described as 'died at age 82' >(or of course 'in her 83rd year'). But at least it suggests that BK is >correctly recognising the year, even if it isn't in DDMMYYYY or DD MMM >YYYY format.