I remember some years ago doing a comparison on Essex and Hertfordshire regarding IGI coverage. I compiled an exhaustive list of all (CofE) parishes in both counties and found that the IGI covered about 90% of Herts parishes and about 30% of Essex ones. I forget exactly what periods I looked at; probably all from c.1530 to 1837. Lawrence On 15/04/2011 23:02, geejay wrote: > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE.. > it is said that many of the parish records for Essex are not in the > IGI. those tend to be my ancestor's records. in fact, those tend to > be a lot of people's ancestor's records. if we knew what the batch > and film number was, we'd be able to trace our ancestry, but we can't > because someone either didn't think that the specific church record > should be in the IGI, or because at some point during an upgrade, > FamilySearch dropped a number of records off the site-I can mention > at least 5 records, but no-one (especially familysearch) will believe > me because they aren't there anymore. perfect catch 22. > > Cornelia > ------------------------------------------- > I have found this problem, often. > I work as a volunteer librarian at my local LDS FHC and we still have the older IGI on Cd's and also the extra old IGI on fiche. There are many entries missing from both files on the newer IGI on familysearch. > If you'd like to send me your list that you can't find, I will have a look for you next time I'm there. > my email is [email protected] > Yours in Genealogy, > Jan, > in sunny QLD, Australia > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Regarding the 70 % of parishes which Lawrence advises are not on the IGI and for anyone on the this list who's ancestor's parish is not on the IGI, I suggest you first check out the LDS library online for a place name search, you may just be surprised to discover the LDS have a particular parish's records on film or in document form. Only with a few exceptions apparently Hertfordshire was one, most counties' parishes have not been indexed by the LDS to their IGI both old or later versions. A classic example was Norfolk where the the IGI is almost totally not represented yet the LDS have almost 100% of the C of E parishes on film, and now via their new website these film can now be browsed and records copied and printed for FREE online. For Essex parishes via the LDS library you can order in films if they are listed, browse them at one of the churches centres NEAR you, and order excellant photocopies from the LDS copying service which was discussed earlier on this message list. It doesn't cost an arm and leg or a sheep station either, cheers Bob in Brisbane ----- Original Message ----- From: "La Greenall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [Ess] To Cornelia re Old IGI. >I remember some years ago doing a comparison on Essex and Hertfordshire > regarding IGI coverage. > > I compiled an exhaustive list of all (CofE) parishes in both counties > and found that the IGI covered about 90% of Herts parishes and about 30% > of Essex ones. > > I forget exactly what periods I looked at; probably all from c.1530 to > 1837. > > Lawrence > > > On 15/04/2011 23:02, geejay wrote: >> >> ORIGINAL MESSAGE.. >> it is said that many of the parish records for Essex are not in the >> IGI. those tend to be my ancestor's records. in fact, those tend to >> be a lot of people's ancestor's records. if we knew what the batch >> and film number was, we'd be able to trace our ancestry, but we can't >> because someone either didn't think that the specific church record >> should be in the IGI, or because at some point during an upgrade, >> FamilySearch dropped a number of records off the site-I can mention >> at least 5 records, but no-one (especially familysearch) will believe >> me because they aren't there anymore. perfect catch 22. >> >> Cornelia >> ------------------------------------------- >> I have found this problem, often. >> I work as a volunteer librarian at my local LDS FHC and we still have >> the older IGI on Cd's and also the extra old IGI on fiche. There are many >> entries missing from both files on the newer IGI on familysearch. >> If you'd like to send me your list that you can't find, I will have a >> look for you next time I'm there. >> my email is [email protected] >> Yours in Genealogy, >> Jan, >> in sunny QLD, Australia >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HI Bob, You wrote:- <<LDS library online for a place name search, you may just be surprised to discover the LDS have a particular parish's records on film or in document form. Only with a few exceptions apparently Hertfordshire was one, << Did you mean that Hertfordshire does not appear in the LDS library catalogue? If so then Hertfordshire parishes "are" in the Catalogue but, as with Yorkshire, you have to put the county as just Hertford and leave out the Shire part. Hertfordshire and Yorkshire become just Hertford and York in the LDS eyes and I suspect that some other shire Counties may also have the shire knocked off the end of their name, though not all I have found. If at first you get no result for your searches for parishes within a Shire county then try again leaving out the Shire part of the county name and see what happens. Faling that put in the parish name and England in the Part Of box. Also County Durham is always shows as just Durham by the LDS, or Durham County which is totally incorrect the proper name is County Durham. Some of the items on the new Record Search site of the familysearch site could be images of the BTs and not necessarily the actual PRs. You need to be aware of what exactly the record is, though the BTs should be an exact copy of the PR entries it is not always so, there can be differences between one and the other. Regards Jenny DeAngelis