Barry In fairness to you, your interpretation isn't too far off the mark. http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl gives the present state of play on allocations made to Syndicates and also those slots which are Free for Allocation. Anyone who emails us regarding a Free for Allocation slot are then advised whether or nor scan source exists. It would be an administration nightmare trying to keep http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl fully in Synchronisation with scan availability. Also not all Syndicates are working from scans. Regards Allan Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 28 March 2004 17:20 Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 >Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood >http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from 1861 >to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for >allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to start >a Syndicate Here". > >An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! > >Barry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> >To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; ><FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > >> I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no scans >> available. >> >> Please see: >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. >> >> An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - >> >> The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are with >> our scanning organisation waiting scanning. >> >> and also see >> >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b >> >> Allan Raymond >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 >> Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 >> >> >> > >> >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with none >> of >> >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much >effort >> >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are >so >> >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather >> than >> >handwritten). >> > >> >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, >> >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded >the >> >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 >> >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm >> >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. >> > >> >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your >> first >> >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: >> I'm >> >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and >run >> a >> >syndicate.) >> > >> >Barry Johnson >> >Monmouthshire >> > >> > >> >============================== >> >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >> >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >> >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >
Thanks, Allan. That's fair enough. I still think it's a mistake to prioritise C20 data, especially where the marriage entries include the spouses names, over a great gap in the C19, where the written pages are often difficult to read on microfiches. I've checked JOHNSON and WARD marriages for all the missing years, and while some microfiches are unclear, the microfilmed pages are fine. I don't understand the rationale of leaving these years until later in the project, if maximum usefulness is the criterion. Still, our not to reason why, ours but to .... carry on transcribing. Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> To: <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:23 PM Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > Barry > > In fairness to you, your interpretation isn't too far off the mark. > > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl gives the present state of play > on allocations made to Syndicates and also those slots which are Free for > Allocation. > > Anyone who emails us regarding a Free for Allocation slot are then advised > whether or nor scan source exists. > > It would be an administration nightmare trying to keep > http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl fully in Synchronisation with > scan availability. Also not all Syndicates are working from scans. > > Regards > > Allan Raymond > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 28 March 2004 17:20 > Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > > >Thanks, Allan. I obviously misunderstood > >http://www2.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/bmd-synd.pl ("Syndicate Allocation from > 1861 > >to 1870" - marriages), taking "Free for Allocation" to mean free for > >allocation to syndicates, especially as we're invited to "Email us to start > >a Syndicate Here". > > > >An excusable misunderstanding on my part, I think! > > > >Barry > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Allan Raymond" <allan_raymond@btinternet.com> > >To: "Barry Johnson" <saint.cybi@virgin.net>; > ><FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:29 PM > >Subject: Re: Marriages 1861 - 63 > > > > > >> I can't set up Syndicates for your Cinderella periods at present, no > scans > >> available. > >> > >> Please see: > >> > >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/news.html - 7th December 2003. > >> > >> An update to the 7 December 2003 Item - > >> > >> The films for Marriages 1843, 1845, 1847, 1857, 1861, 1862 & 1863 are > with > >> our scanning organisation waiting scanning. > >> > >> and also see > >> > >> http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/vol_faq.html#13b > >> > >> Allan Raymond > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Barry Johnson <saint.cybi@virgin.net> > >> To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com <FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com> > >> Date: 27 March 2004 12:40 > >> Subject: Marriages 1861 - 63 > >> > >> > >> > > >> >Marriages for the 1860s appear to be the Cinderella of FreeBMD, with > none > >> of > >> >the 1861-63 pages allocated at all. I don't understand why so much > >effort > >> >is going into the transcribing of pages from the C20 when the latter are > >so > >> >much easier to look up (more entries per page) and read (printed rather > >> than > >> >handwritten). > >> > > >> >I have an interest to declare - a missing marriage from these years, > >> >possibly involving some very inventive surname spelling. I've uploaded > >the > >> >results of my GRO Index searches from 1854 to 1863, involving some 400 > >> >entries, but that's the merest drop in the ocean, and the syndicate I'm > >> >transcribing for mainly covers births and deaths. > >> > > >> >Please someone, start a syndicate for 1861-63 marriages. I'll be your > >> first > >> >volunteer! (And in answer to the inevitable - and reasonable - question: > >> I'm > >> >afraid I don't have the time, or probably the expertise, to set up and > >run > >> a > >> >syndicate.) > >> > > >> >Barry Johnson > >> >Monmouthshire > >> > > >> > > >> >============================== > >> >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >> >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >> >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >> > >> > > > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > >