Hi Geoff Points taken and understood, however I still stand by my statement that as an extraction it is likely to be correct however I should have made it more obvious that you need to make absolutely sure that the original has been transcribed correctly (which I alluded to but did not make as obvious as I should) Of the entries on the IGI from extractions I have checked, I have found them to be correct (that is of course a small sample and does not mean they are all correct) Where the entry is a patron submission it is often very far from correct, many assumptions being made as to the age at which marriage occurred, the place of marriage, birth etc It is fair to say that whatever the source, the original document should always be checked to ensure the transcription is accurate Thanks for yours though, wise words as usual Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct > > > Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the > marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, > subject to the > human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". > Add to > this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would > probably > have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as > dubious > until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a > good > facsimile of it".