Don't worry Christopher - Martin is looking into it and we do consult images where appropriate and have done so for years. Best wishes Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Richards" <cmr1chards@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <freebmd-syndicates@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 5:12 PM Subject: Re: District problem in 1838 > 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 >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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: 270.10.16/1928 - Release Date: 01/30/09 17:31:00