On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:01:42 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:52:14 +0100, Ian Goddard >> <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Charles Ellson wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:42:44 +0100, Ian Goddard >>>>> just that using a >>>>> single month has a two thirds chance of being wrong even if it's what >>>>> the official lists say. >>>>> >>>> Using the quarter of registration to indicate the birthdate only drops >>>> the potential error from c.66% to c.47% (assuming for simple >>>> convenience an even distribution across the time available for >>>> registration). >>>> >>> >>> You'll need to walk me through this one, Charles. >>> >>> Even distribution was one of my assumptions too. >>> >>> The other is that the nominal months (Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec) have 1 in 3 of >>> the available days (2 @ 31 days plus 2 @ 30 days comes to 122 days which >>> is as near to a third of the days in a year as you can get). >>> >> But the records use (or rather they used to use) quarters not months, >> the month indicates the "quarter ending ....."; the confusion is due >> to the failure of Ancestry etc. to properly identify that they are >> referring to quarters rather than months. It is similar to the errors >> encountered with ages derived from censuses which fail to allow for >> human beings not having their ages defined in the same way as race >> horses who all have their birthday on the 1st January (see also >> company reports, tax years etc.). >> >>> Therefore 1/3 of events will fall into the nominal months of the >>> quarters and 2/3 into the other months. Those 2/3 are in error. >>> >> No, the event could have occurred up to 42 days (6 weeks) before the >> quarter of registration thus a birth properly registered in MAR >> quarter could have occurred as long ago as the previous November. >> >>> So how do you calculate a 47% error? >>> >> A combination of distraction and miskeying I suspect. For MAR quarter >> the nominal period is c.13 weeks but the events _registered_ could >> have occurred any time during a c.19 week period. 6/19 = 31.6% from >> the previous quarter (and year). That deals with the available dates >> of birth rather than the actual probability of the birth being in the >> previous quarter which can be expected to be a lower figure if >> diligent registrars and parents not being slow to register are >> assumed. >> > >Two issues here (apart from the fact that I should have said prompt >registration was also an assumption). > >One is that, as you point out, "could have" is not the same as >"invariably did". And different events are affected in different ways. > As the registration was rolled into the marriage ceremony so unless >the returns were not made on time there should not be a discrepancy - >and one imagines that registrars in the habit of making late returns >would have had words said to them. I'm not sure at what stage a death >certificate was required for burial > The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1836 required that a death be registered (or a Coroner's certificate be issued) otherwise "if any dead Body shall be buried for which no such Certificate shall have been so delivered, the Person who shall bury or perform any Funeral or any religious Service for the Burial shall forthwith give Notice thereof to the Registrar ...... and who shall not within Seven Days give Notice thereof to the Registrar, shall forfeit and pay any Sum not exceeding Ten Pounds for every such Offence." s.1 Births and Deaths Registration Act 1926 specifically prohibits disposal of a body without a registrar's certificate or coroner's order. The Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1874 does not have an equivalent section. The Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 seems to have continued the 1836 arrangements. If The Burial and Registration Acts (Doubts Removal) Act 1881 (repealed by the 1926 Act but not found via Google) did not alter this then the answer is possibly 1926. I have however got a relative who was knocked down by a lorry and taken to hospital in Finchley in the 1940s and buried the same month in Scotland but with no trace in either the deaths index or the local coroner's records; it would seem unlikely that she was rushed over the border to breath her last thus avoiding issue of an "out of England" certificate. >but when that became the norm it >would have been difficult to avoid registering the death more than a few >days after the event. > >That just leaves births. I had a quick check on a few births in my own >family from late C19th & early C10th) where I have dates of birth >readily to hand. There were two births within the last 6 weeks and both >were registered in the correct period on one side. On the other side, >rather more remote from the registration office, there were four in the >last 6 weeks of which one was in the correct period (actually it's >maybe not surprising that a child born on the 28th of December missed >registration). So on a very small sample it looks as if half were >registered late and that logistics could have been a factor in this; it >would be interesting to see how representative this is of the wider >population. > >Even allowing for the worst case on births the overall errors will be >much less due to the other events having much less scope for errors. > >The other issue is that, taking the extreme case of *all* events being >reported 6 weeks late, you original calculation is the correct one. To >check this, consider how many results are correct in a 13 week return: >it's those from the the first 7 weeks. So 7/13 of the quarter's return >are correct and it follows that 6/13 are errors.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:48:50 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >On 21/08/2013 17:39, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:01:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: >>>> Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem >>>> to have been mentioned before: >>>> >>>> 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or >>>> daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to >>>> be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so >>> >>> That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. >>> A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you >>> suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to >>> use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census. >>> >> The Chief is correct. As demonstrated with past television programmes, >> there is no bar on a woman styling herself "lady/Lady" in the absence >> of criminal deception. The last one I remember was two different women >> being sent into a shop (Harrods or Selfridges possibly) whose only >> practical difference was one styling herself "Lady" and who received >> clearly different treatment from the other. The matter has also been >> mentioned on various programmes about shooping fraud where the style >> "Lady" was described as lawful until it became part of an act of >> criminal deception (which can committed by allowing someone to form an >> incorrect impression of the perpetrator's status even if the >> perpetrator makes no specific claim). > >You are talking of fraud in modern times which is not really pertinent >to the early 20th century. > Giving the false impression that your credit is good was far from a modern invention in the 19th century. > >> As for "The style or title of Lady is part of one's name", that is >> only correct with titles or names but not with styles, > >If a woman has the style of Lady Smith, this tells us the style is by >right of her husband, that she is the wife of a titled person or a >knight. If she is styled Lady Mary Smith, then the style is her own, >something she has inherited as the daughter of a peer, or something she >has been granted by the monarch. > No, if she is female and has the surname Smith then that is enough. It might not be acceptable to people in some social circles but it isn't forbidden. >My great-grandmother was a Lady, by right of her husband, who was a >knight. She sometimes styled herself "Dame". Her daughter was the wife >of a baron, and the baron and the baroness never used their surname, but >that of his title. If he was, for example, Bill Jones, Baron Middleton, >he called himself Bill Middleton.

On 21/08/2013 17:39, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:01:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > >> >> >> On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: >>> Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem >>> to have been mentioned before: >>> >>> 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or >>> daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to >>> be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so >> >> That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. >> A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you >> suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to >> use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census. >> > The Chief is correct. As demonstrated with past television programmes, > there is no bar on a woman styling herself "lady/Lady" in the absence > of criminal deception. The last one I remember was two different women > being sent into a shop (Harrods or Selfridges possibly) whose only > practical difference was one styling herself "Lady" and who received > clearly different treatment from the other. The matter has also been > mentioned on various programmes about shooping fraud where the style > "Lady" was described as lawful until it became part of an act of > criminal deception (which can committed by allowing someone to form an > incorrect impression of the perpetrator's status even if the > perpetrator makes no specific claim). You are talking of fraud in modern times which is not really pertinent to the early 20th century. > As for "The style or title of Lady is part of one's name", that is > only correct with titles or names but not with styles, If a woman has the style of Lady Smith, this tells us the style is by right of her husband, that she is the wife of a titled person or a knight. If she is styled Lady Mary Smith, then the style is her own, something she has inherited as the daughter of a peer, or something she has been granted by the monarch. My great-grandmother was a Lady, by right of her husband, who was a knight. She sometimes styled herself "Dame". Her daughter was the wife of a baron, and the baron and the baroness never used their surname, but that of his title. If he was, for example, Bill Jones, Baron Middleton, he called himself Bill Middleton.

Charles Ellson wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:52:14 +0100, Ian Goddard > <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> Charles Ellson wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:42:44 +0100, Ian Goddard >>>> just that using a >>>> single month has a two thirds chance of being wrong even if it's what >>>> the official lists say. >>>> >>> Using the quarter of registration to indicate the birthdate only drops >>> the potential error from c.66% to c.47% (assuming for simple >>> convenience an even distribution across the time available for >>> registration). >>> >> >> You'll need to walk me through this one, Charles. >> >> Even distribution was one of my assumptions too. >> >> The other is that the nominal months (Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec) have 1 in 3 of >> the available days (2 @ 31 days plus 2 @ 30 days comes to 122 days which >> is as near to a third of the days in a year as you can get). >> > But the records use (or rather they used to use) quarters not months, > the month indicates the "quarter ending ....."; the confusion is due > to the failure of Ancestry etc. to properly identify that they are > referring to quarters rather than months. It is similar to the errors > encountered with ages derived from censuses which fail to allow for > human beings not having their ages defined in the same way as race > horses who all have their birthday on the 1st January (see also > company reports, tax years etc.). > >> Therefore 1/3 of events will fall into the nominal months of the >> quarters and 2/3 into the other months. Those 2/3 are in error. >> > No, the event could have occurred up to 42 days (6 weeks) before the > quarter of registration thus a birth properly registered in MAR > quarter could have occurred as long ago as the previous November. > >> So how do you calculate a 47% error? >> > A combination of distraction and miskeying I suspect. For MAR quarter > the nominal period is c.13 weeks but the events _registered_ could > have occurred any time during a c.19 week period. 6/19 = 31.6% from > the previous quarter (and year). That deals with the available dates > of birth rather than the actual probability of the birth being in the > previous quarter which can be expected to be a lower figure if > diligent registrars and parents not being slow to register are > assumed. > Two issues here (apart from the fact that I should have said prompt registration was also an assumption). One is that, as you point out, "could have" is not the same as "invariably did". And different events are affected in different ways. As the registration was rolled into the marriage ceremony so unless the returns were not made on time there should not be a discrepancy - and one imagines that registrars in the habit of making late returns would have had words said to them. I'm not sure at what stage a death certificate was required for burial but when that became the norm it would have been difficult to avoid registering the death more than a few days after the event. That just leaves births. I had a quick check on a few births in my own family from late C19th & early C10th) where I have dates of birth readily to hand. There were two births within the last 6 weeks and both were registered in the correct period on one side. On the other side, rather more remote from the registration office, there were four in the last 6 weeks of which one was in the correct period (actually it's maybe not surprising that a child born on the 28th of December missed registration). So on a very small sample it looks as if half were registered late and that logistics could have been a factor in this; it would be interesting to see how representative this is of the wider population. Even allowing for the worst case on births the overall errors will be much less due to the other events having much less scope for errors. The other issue is that, taking the extreme case of *all* events being reported 6 weeks late, you original calculation is the correct one. To check this, consider how many results are correct in a 13 week return: it's those from the the first 7 weeks. So 7/13 of the quarter's return are correct and it follows that 6/13 are errors. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:01:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > > >On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: >> Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem >> to have been mentioned before: >> >> 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or >> daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to >> be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so > >That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. >A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you >suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to >use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census. > The Chief is correct. As demonstrated with past television programmes, there is no bar on a woman styling herself "lady/Lady" in the absence of criminal deception. The last one I remember was two different women being sent into a shop (Harrods or Selfridges possibly) whose only practical difference was one styling herself "Lady" and who received clearly different treatment from the other. The matter has also been mentioned on various programmes about shooping fraud where the style "Lady" was described as lawful until it became part of an act of criminal deception (which can committed by allowing someone to form an incorrect impression of the perpetrator's status even if the perpetrator makes no specific claim). As for "The style or title of Lady is part of one's name", that is only correct with titles or names but not with styles, see e.g. :- "https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118548/titles-included-in-passports.pdf" which unfortunately fails to mention women at all but sets out the varying treatment where the same word can be a title (e.g. Lord Wherever), a description (e.g. Lord of the Manor) or a personal name; in the latter case the name is recorded but with the observation that "The reference to.... is to the holder's name and not to the holder's title."

On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: > Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem > to have been mentioned before: > > 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or > daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to > be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census.

On 20/08/2013 15:09, singhals wrote: > > Aren't there enough things the newbie (and the oldie) need to > remember about boundary changes and calendar changes and how Regnal > dates and the Quaker dating system(s) differ from the > Gregorian/Julian and why Uncle James' baptism is down as Jacobus ... > without tossing in an unnecessary difference? Even if /this/ change > seems like a good idea at the time. What change? And the whole point of any discipline is to learn its methods, not try and change what you find too difficult to interpet.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:39:01 PM UTC, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:01:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: > > >> Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem > > >> to have been mentioned before: > > >> > > >> 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or > > >> daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to > > >> be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so > > > > > >That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. > > >A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you > > >suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to > > >use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census. > > > > > The Chief is correct. As demonstrated with past television programmes, > > there is no bar on a woman styling herself "lady/Lady" in the absence > > of criminal deception. The last one I remember was two different women > > being sent into a shop (Harrods or Selfridges possibly) whose only > > practical difference was one styling herself "Lady" and who received > > clearly different treatment from the other. The matter has also been > > mentioned on various programmes about shooping fraud where the style > > "Lady" was described as lawful until it became part of an act of > > criminal deception (which can committed by allowing someone to form an > > incorrect impression of the perpetrator's status even if the > > perpetrator makes no specific claim). > > > > As for "The style or title of Lady is part of one's name", that is > > only correct with titles or names but not with styles, see e.g. :- > > "https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118548/titles-included-in-passports.pdf" > > which unfortunately fails to mention women at all but sets out the > > varying treatment where the same word can be a title (e.g. Lord > > Wherever), a description (e.g. Lord of the Manor) or a personal name; > > in the latter case the name is recorded but with the observation that > > "The reference to.... is to the holder's name and not to the holder's > > title." Agreed. Regards, The Chief

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01:29 PM UTC, Renia wrote: > On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: > > > Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem > > > to have been mentioned before: > > > > > > 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or > > > daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to > > > be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so > > > > That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. > > A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you > > suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to > > use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census. Thank you for so perfectly capturing the type of confusion I am suggesting occurred in this case! The point is that "lady" has many connotations. In this instance, I am suggesting that the lady in question (see how easy it is to say "lady"...!!) did not refer to herself as "Lady Fulton", i.e. never made any improper claim to a title/style to which she was not entitled. Instead, she, or someone else, may have - entirely correctly - described her as a "lady". In this sense meaning the wife/widow/daughter of a gentleman. This is often the case on census documents, and is entirely proper. However, it can be misunderstood by the unwary as being a claim to be "Lady xyz", and so the unwary can go on to refer to "Lady XYZ", when XYZ never said or claimed such a thing. Regards, The Chief

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:14:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <7cg2199tu6fegerv7hpfrj1mlsb4llp2jp@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson ><ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >>On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:05:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >[] >>>What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using >>>just one month to indicate a quarter)? >>> >>It has been standard to refer to MAR, JUN, SEP, DEC quarters since >>1837. >[] >It may have been, but (as well as the fact that I _have_ seen them >referred to as Jan, Apr, July, and Oct), there are lots of cases where >the word - or concept - of "quarter" gets dropped/lost, so what was "Jun >Qtr 1897" gets recorded/shown as "Jun 1897". If we used "Q2" rather than >"Jun", I think that would be less _likely_ to happen. When I enter such things, I enter the events as Abt May for the June Quarter, and in the source reference put FreeBMD, (Placename) Births (or whatever), Jun Qtr followed by the volume and the page. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:52:14 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:42:44 +0100, Ian Goddard >>> just that using a >>> single month has a two thirds chance of being wrong even if it's what >>> the official lists say. >>> >> Using the quarter of registration to indicate the birthdate only drops >> the potential error from c.66% to c.47% (assuming for simple >> convenience an even distribution across the time available for >> registration). >> > >You'll need to walk me through this one, Charles. > >Even distribution was one of my assumptions too. > >The other is that the nominal months (Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec) have 1 in 3 of >the available days (2 @ 31 days plus 2 @ 30 days comes to 122 days which >is as near to a third of the days in a year as you can get). > But the records use (or rather they used to use) quarters not months, the month indicates the "quarter ending ....."; the confusion is due to the failure of Ancestry etc. to properly identify that they are referring to quarters rather than months. It is similar to the errors encountered with ages derived from censuses which fail to allow for human beings not having their ages defined in the same way as race horses who all have their birthday on the 1st January (see also company reports, tax years etc.). >Therefore 1/3 of events will fall into the nominal months of the >quarters and 2/3 into the other months. Those 2/3 are in error. > No, the event could have occurred up to 42 days (6 weeks) before the quarter of registration thus a birth properly registered in MAR quarter could have occurred as long ago as the previous November. >So how do you calculate a 47% error? > A combination of distraction and miskeying I suspect. For MAR quarter the nominal period is c.13 weeks but the events _registered_ could have occurred any time during a c.19 week period. 6/19 = 31.6% from the previous quarter (and year). That deals with the available dates of birth rather than the actual probability of the birth being in the previous quarter which can be expected to be a lower figure if diligent registrars and parents not being slow to register are assumed.

Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem to have been mentioned before: 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so described on census returns, etc. It is easy to confuse such a lady with a "Lady", as in titled lady. So, I can easily imagine a miscommunication where the generous donor for the RAF building was described as a "lady", and this was misunderstood as being a claim to hold a title. 2) The possible Wexford Carew connection. If the putative wife was one of the Wexford Carews then it is possible that she held the title of Lady in her own right. The Wexford Carews were titled - Lord Carew. Regards, The Chief

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 09:13:59 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Hi all, > I have come across a article in our local Isle of Wight weekly paper >the "County Press" (snip) >Does anyone have any thoughts on how I can get this in a reasonably >quality? >Thanks, When it comes to newspaper photographs that are, as you know, mostly comprised of just a series of various sized and spaced black dots on the white newspaper, hence a 2 colour image. One technique that I have successfully used is to scan the photo at a fairly high resolution and then use the resize function in a graphics program (Paint Shop Pro etc) to reduce the size of the image to the pixel size you want. It seems* like the resizing looks to 'close up' the dot spacing to give more of an impression of a grey scale image. * I say seems as that's what I noticed and whilst it may have just been an abberation it's not difficult to give it a go and see what sort of result you get. Cheers, -- Robert G. Eldridge Toronto NSW Australia http://www.eldridgegenealogy.org Now researching ELDRIDGE families world wide 1000s at my Web site *Wanted* Any Eldridge related information This newsgroup post is not an invitation to reply by email.

"Renia" <renia@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:kuufnv$nd5$1@speranza.aioe.org... > On 20/08/2013 00:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <kurmqk$pab$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> >> writes: >>> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> [] >>>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest >>>> any of >>>> >>>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>>> Q2 1891 >>>> 1891Q2 >>> >>> No, we can't. The above reference is direct from the General Register >> >> Why not? Just because a bad (I think more posters have agreed with me >> than disagreed) way of identifying the quarters, I see no reason to >> continue to do so. > > It's not our terminology. It's the terminology of the GRO. You'd better > contact them and tell them to change their methods to suit you. I just use about or Abt Mar 1878 or what ever, the about means it is not exact if a year is only known I still use abt 1870 or whatever, In New Zealand and Australia you only get the year from the online BMD indexes, so a quarter is a lot closer, often it is enough, as I certainly can't afford every cert to get the full date.

Robert G Eldridge wrote: > On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 09:13:59 +0100, Mick<mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I have come across a article in our local Isle of Wight weekly paper >> the "County Press" > (snip) > >> Does anyone have any thoughts on how I can get this in a reasonably >> quality? >> Thanks, > > When it comes to newspaper photographs that are, as you know, mostly > comprised of just a series of various sized and spaced black dots on > the white newspaper, hence a 2 colour image. > > One technique that I have successfully used is to scan the photo at a > fairly high resolution and then use the resize function in a graphics > program (Paint Shop Pro etc) to reduce the size of the image to the > pixel size you want. > > It seems* like the resizing looks to 'close up' the dot spacing to > give more of an impression of a grey scale image. > > * I say seems as that's what I noticed and whilst it may have just > been an abberation it's not difficult to give it a go and see what > sort of result you get. Many scanners allow you to specify de-screening; I've found it doesn't always work as advertised, but quite frequently scanning as a magazine photo instead of a newspaper photo DOES work. Worth a shot anyway. And in either event, you can always print the dotty scan as a grey-scale image and then rescan, which sometimes helps further. Cheryl

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message<kurmqk$pab$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia<renia@otenet.gr> > writes: >> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of >>> >>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>> Q2 1891 >>> 1891Q2 >> >> No, we can't. The above reference is direct from the General Register > > Why not? Just because a bad (I think more posters have agreed with me > than disagreed) way of identifying the quarters, I see no reason to > continue to do so. > >> Office index of Births, which holds its Births, Marriage and Deaths >> indexes to the registers in quarters, March, June, September and >> December. >> >> And this is something any newbie genealogist just has to learn and >> understand. >> >> Just as they have to learn that this particular birth did not >> necessarily take place in Gravesend, but took place within the >> Gravesend registration district, which included many different towns >> and parishes. > > Agreed: any new genealogist has to learn both of those points, since > there are so many such references around. (They also have to learn about > registration delay.) But I see no reason to continue to use a misleading > method in any _new_ reference I/we make. >> >> Any newbie should go to the Genuki web site to learn about sources for >> British and Irish genealogy.. >> >> Here, for example, are the registration districts for Kent: >> >> http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/ken.html >> >> 2a is the volume and 538 is the page. >> > (I knew that - I only mentioned those as evidence that the reference I > was quoting _was_ from the indexes.) Aren't there enough things the newbie (and the oldie) need to remember about boundary changes and calendar changes and how Regnal dates and the Quaker dating system(s) differ from the Gregorian/Julian and why Uncle James' baptism is down as Jacobus ... without tossing in an unnecessary difference? Even if /this/ change seems like a good idea at the time. Cheryl

Charles Ellson wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:42:44 +0100, Ian Goddard >> just that using a >> single month has a two thirds chance of being wrong even if it's what >> the official lists say. >> > Using the quarter of registration to indicate the birthdate only drops > the potential error from c.66% to c.47% (assuming for simple > convenience an even distribution across the time available for > registration). > You'll need to walk me through this one, Charles. Even distribution was one of my assumptions too. The other is that the nominal months (Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec) have 1 in 3 of the available days (2 @ 31 days plus 2 @ 30 days comes to 122 days which is as near to a third of the days in a year as you can get). Therefore 1/3 of events will fall into the nominal months of the quarters and 2/3 into the other months. Those 2/3 are in error. So how do you calculate a 47% error? -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Tickettyboo wrote: > 2. I leave the whole the rest of my property including all securities, > stocks, share, cash at bank or other moneys, lease of my property at > Longridge Road & any other possessions not falling into the provision of > para 1 to Mrs Violet Corcoran of 42 Clanricarde Gardens, Bayswater, London. I think if I were you I'd see if I could find her will. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 19/08/2013 23:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <b7crheFto7dU1@mid.individual.net>, Tickettyboo > <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> writes: > [] >> No, travelling isn't an option for me atm. Though I would have thought > > Sorry to hear that. > >> if there was a plaque then the reply to my query to the base would >> have mentioned that. > > Yes if it's well-maintained; however, it might have been painted over, > some piece of furniture moved in front of it, or similar, such that > nobody knows it's there. A foundation stone might again have been > painted enough times that nobody knows it is one, and/or had things > placed in front of it. > >> Not too sure that they actually allow civilians to wander into an RAF >> base anyway, I would have thought they were pretty hot on security? > > I very much doubt you'd be able to just walk in! In this case, Cosford is a museum open to the public so, yes, you can just walk in. Whether the block you are interested in is in the public area is another matter. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 20/08/2013 00:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <kurmqk$pab$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> > writes: >> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest >>> any of >>> >>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>> Q2 1891 >>> 1891Q2 >> >> No, we can't. The above reference is direct from the General Register > > Why not? Just because a bad (I think more posters have agreed with me > than disagreed) way of identifying the quarters, I see no reason to > continue to do so. It's not our terminology. It's the terminology of the GRO. You'd better contact them and tell them to change their methods to suit you.