I've doing some correcting of old transcriptions and have come across the Seisdon/Seisden/Lexden issue. Seisden has been linked to Lexdon but the Sesidon, 17 comes up separately. All the entries for Seisden/Seisdon that I've come across so far are late entries squeezed into the page. So they are small and hard to be sure if they read Seisdon or Seisden. However the example on page 1838D1S0273 is clearly Seisdon when looked at on the equivalent page of ancestry. Page 171 of 1838>Q1-JAN-FEB-MAR >S. I think it would be consistent to link the four examples of Seisdon in 1838D1 to Lexden. Christopher Richards

Hello Christopher Martin is looking into this, but due to frequent transcriptions of the Victorian manuscript L as a modern day S, there are 25 'Seisden' entries to be taken into account , some of which are for Lexden and others of which are for Seisdon. The first step is exactly as per your off-list suggestion, but he will also revisit the 'overlap' spellings between these 2 districts this month as part of his regular activities when he tries to spot and fix any errors we have made during alising. If any other syndicates coordinators find any other problems with aliasing please mail them to me and / or Martin for investigation and correction, where possible - which it is in 99.99... % of cases Best wishes Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "IGRS Treasurer" <treasurerigrs@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:32 AM Subject: District problem in 1838 > I've doing some correcting of old transcriptions and have come across > the Seisdon/Seisden/Lexden issue. > > Seisden has been linked to Lexdon but the Sesidon, 17 comes up separately. > > All the entries for Seisden/Seisdon that I've come across so far are > late entries squeezed into the page. So they are small and hard to be > sure if they read Seisdon or Seisden. However the example on page > 1838D1S0273 is clearly Seisdon when looked at on the equivalent page of > ancestry. Page 171 of 1838>Q1-JAN-FEB-MAR >S. > > I think it would be consistent to link the four examples of Seisdon in > 1838D1 to Lexden. > > Christopher Richards > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 01/30/09 17:31:00

The problem with this lot is that the examples of Seisden and Seisdon do really seem to begin with an S rather than L. My first react ion was that the transcriber had mistaken an S for an L. The other difficulty is that quite a lot of the scans for 1838D1 are bad and the indexes were removed before Bob Phillips could get more than a small number photographed. Christopher Richards Christopher Mary Trevan wrote: > Hello Christopher > > Martin is looking into this, but due to frequent transcriptions of the > Victorian manuscript L as a modern day S, there are 25 'Seisden' entries to > be taken into account , some of which are for Lexden and others of which are > for Seisdon. > > The first step is exactly as per your off-list suggestion, but he will also > revisit the 'overlap' spellings between these 2 districts this month as part > of his regular activities when he tries to spot and fix any errors we have > made during alising. > > If any other syndicates coordinators find any other problems with aliasing > please mail them to me and / or Martin for investigation and correction, > where possible - which it is in 99.99... % of cases > > Best wishes > > Mary > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "IGRS Treasurer" <treasurerigrs@blueyonder.co.uk> > To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:32 AM > Subject: District problem in 1838 > > > >> I've doing some correcting of old transcriptions and have come across >> the Seisdon/Seisden/Lexden issue. >> >> Seisden has been linked to Lexdon but the Sesidon, 17 comes up separately. >> >> All the entries for Seisden/Seisdon that I've come across so far are >> late entries squeezed into the page. So they are small and hard to be >> sure if they read Seisdon or Seisden. However the example on page >> 1838D1S0273 is clearly Seisdon when looked at on the equivalent page of >> ancestry. Page 171 of 1838>Q1-JAN-FEB-MAR >S. >> >> I think it would be consistent to link the four examples of Seisdon in >> 1838D1 to Lexden. >> >> Christopher Richards >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 01/30/09 > 17:31:00 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >