Brian, Thank you for explaining and sharing your knowledge to all of us on the message board. What you pointed out compares to the little bit of information I have gleaned out of books / conferences in the past. I'm sure that many of us appreciate it when people like you take the time to "get your learning on" and help us not as knowledgeable in specific things as photography as you state. You were very professional and friendly in your reply. Meg in Michigan On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 2:49 pm, JK wrote: >> Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the >> grounds for the argument. > > No, you do not understand my comment. The skull appears larger > because the > photo is at a different zoom factor, not because it has gotten bigger. > Maybe the camera was closer, maybe the photographer zoomed in more, > maybe > the photograph was developed from a projection of the negative and the > photograph is enlarged and zoomed in, etc. The fact is that one > picture is > a more closeup shot and that is the reason for the larger head. > >> >> The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early >> twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would >> place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 >> years. >> Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is >> difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for >> years. >> I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 >> years old and the locals would comment on the fact. > > Given the fact that he is not wearing the same suit, it can be > argued he > isn't wearing a 30 year old suit. They are distinctly different styles > from different time periods. Don't be so sure that small towns 100 > years > ago didn't keep up with the current styles, within reason. > > There are only three inexpensive ways to date a photograph that I > know of. > The actual types of photographic materials used in different periods, > clues in the picture itself, and photographs of known age. Your > anecdotal > evidence that people in small towns wore 25-30 old suits in your > childhood > doesn't prove that the clothes worn by the general population or any > subset thereof 100 years ago are also such. You asked for help, and > I gave > you tips on how genealogists and historians accomplish this. I > didn't say > using clothing to date photographs will prove absolutely a date with > any > precision. It was merely a tool I suggested to be used with other > tools. > Generally, getting a photograph taken was an expensive thing and a > special > event. People would, in general, wear their best and newest clothes > for > the sitting, and not the usual 25-30 year old suit worn daily to work. > Furthermore, a twenty five year old is unlikely to be wearing a 25 > year > old suit, and is far far more likely to be wearing whatever was in > style > for his/her time period, at least if he was rich enough to have > money to > spend on photographs. Naturally, it's easier to date photos with > women in > them, as styles changed much more rapidly, even in small towns. > > Without knowing what the older photograph is in > thickness/size/type/construction/composition, I can't offer you > anymore > help than I have. There are sites on the web that show you how to date > photographs. Since you have suspicions as to the originality of the > one > you have. It may not be possible to come up with a useful date on > either > photograph, but then again maybe it is. > > Then again, maybe he was older than it is stated he was. If he is > wearing > a suit that was popular in the 1870s and not in the 1860s, that > might be a > clue. Unless, of course, he comes from one of those really progressive > small towns that are always years ahead of the current styles. > > > Bottom line, it's the same person at two different time periods and > his > head hasn't enlarged, and he hasn't developed a cleft chin. They are > just > illusions due to all the variables that are possible with photographs. > > Brian > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

On Sun, May 31, 2009 2:49 pm, JK wrote: > Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the > grounds for the argument. No, you do not understand my comment. The skull appears larger because the photo is at a different zoom factor, not because it has gotten bigger. Maybe the camera was closer, maybe the photographer zoomed in more, maybe the photograph was developed from a projection of the negative and the photograph is enlarged and zoomed in, etc. The fact is that one picture is a more closeup shot and that is the reason for the larger head. > > The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early > twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would > place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 years. > Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is > difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for years. > I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 > years old and the locals would comment on the fact. Given the fact that he is not wearing the same suit, it can be argued he isn't wearing a 30 year old suit. They are distinctly different styles from different time periods. Don't be so sure that small towns 100 years ago didn't keep up with the current styles, within reason. There are only three inexpensive ways to date a photograph that I know of. The actual types of photographic materials used in different periods, clues in the picture itself, and photographs of known age. Your anecdotal evidence that people in small towns wore 25-30 old suits in your childhood doesn't prove that the clothes worn by the general population or any subset thereof 100 years ago are also such. You asked for help, and I gave you tips on how genealogists and historians accomplish this. I didn't say using clothing to date photographs will prove absolutely a date with any precision. It was merely a tool I suggested to be used with other tools. Generally, getting a photograph taken was an expensive thing and a special event. People would, in general, wear their best and newest clothes for the sitting, and not the usual 25-30 year old suit worn daily to work. Furthermore, a twenty five year old is unlikely to be wearing a 25 year old suit, and is far far more likely to be wearing whatever was in style for his/her time period, at least if he was rich enough to have money to spend on photographs. Naturally, it's easier to date photos with women in them, as styles changed much more rapidly, even in small towns. Without knowing what the older photograph is in thickness/size/type/construction/composition, I can't offer you anymore help than I have. There are sites on the web that show you how to date photographs. Since you have suspicions as to the originality of the one you have. It may not be possible to come up with a useful date on either photograph, but then again maybe it is. Then again, maybe he was older than it is stated he was. If he is wearing a suit that was popular in the 1870s and not in the 1860s, that might be a clue. Unless, of course, he comes from one of those really progressive small towns that are always years ahead of the current styles. Bottom line, it's the same person at two different time periods and his head hasn't enlarged, and he hasn't developed a cleft chin. They are just illusions due to all the variables that are possible with photographs. Brian

Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the grounds for the argument. The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 years. Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for years. I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 years old and the locals would comment on the fact. The comment on fingerprints I won't comment on, that should be passed along to the FBI so they can scrap their collection. Thanx for the input [email protected] wrote: > One skull looks bigger because it takes up more space in the photo. The > cleft chin is an optical illusion due to the shadow under the chin. > Different lighting conditiions. The ears can't be compared completely due > to the different angle of the face. Clearly no change in features I can > see. Quite rematkable that the nose hasn't changed. I do not know the span > of years. Quite an achievement for this guy, he even keeps his sideburns > the same size and shape over the span of years. I would have to guess a > 10-15 year gap in the photos. I see no problem in these photos. Clearly > the same person at two different periods. Using the clothing you might be > able to get a good estimate of the dates, there are numerous sites on the > web that will give you a leg up on comparing the clothes to date the > pictures. > There is too much information to post in a reply on this subject (google > will find it for you). > > In a nutshell, your comparison problems arise from the facts that the two > photos were taken: at different times, at different angles, with different > lighting, with different amount of hair on top, different cameras, > different lenses, etc. > > Also, I'm not sure how unique ears are, and it's been shown that > fingerprints aren't as unique as we are led to believe. Not something that > gets much newsplay. I can't quote you a source, so believe it or not as > you like. > > I was expecting a much harder challenge. Unlikely a son would look that > much like him. Possible, but improbable. The clothing will probably > illuminate further. You haven't included any dates, nor physical > descriptions/dimensions of the photographs; without which I can't assist > you further. I could scour the web and probably roughly date them for you, > given details of the photographs. I'm no expert. > > Brian > > On Sat, May 30, 2009 3:09 pm, JK wrote: >> Have never seen anyone do a photo comparison on the list before so this >> may be a first. >> >> It should pertain to anyone who is trying to verify old photographs to a >> newer version of the same person >> >> I've posted 2 photos at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1krug.html >> >> They appear to be the same person. There are many similarities and I'm >> not interested in a vote of whether members think they are the same >> person. >> >> My problem arises in the fact that I believe the younger version has a >> much larger skull. It appears to expand while the older version appears >> to narrow. And I don't think skulls shrink with age. >> The second problem I have is I don't believe the photographer whose >> stamp is on the early picture was around anywhere near that time. But, >> it could be explained by the picture being a reprint a number of years >> later though. >> >> I'm looking for anyone who may have some expertise in doing comparisons. >> I know that ears are as distinct as fingerprints and one ear seems very >> close but I'm not convinced on the other. The eyes, square jaw, and nose >> could be genetic. The older picture appears to have a cleft where the >> younger one doesn't. This could be lighting or even an accident later in >> life. >> Also, the guy had 4 sons. At least one should look like him. >> >> As I said, no voting. Just constructive comments. >> Maybe others will get some help from the intercourse >> >> JK >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

One skull looks bigger because it takes up more space in the photo. The cleft chin is an optical illusion due to the shadow under the chin. Different lighting conditiions. The ears can't be compared completely due to the different angle of the face. Clearly no change in features I can see. Quite rematkable that the nose hasn't changed. I do not know the span of years. Quite an achievement for this guy, he even keeps his sideburns the same size and shape over the span of years. I would have to guess a 10-15 year gap in the photos. I see no problem in these photos. Clearly the same person at two different periods. Using the clothing you might be able to get a good estimate of the dates, there are numerous sites on the web that will give you a leg up on comparing the clothes to date the pictures. There is too much information to post in a reply on this subject (google will find it for you). In a nutshell, your comparison problems arise from the facts that the two photos were taken: at different times, at different angles, with different lighting, with different amount of hair on top, different cameras, different lenses, etc. Also, I'm not sure how unique ears are, and it's been shown that fingerprints aren't as unique as we are led to believe. Not something that gets much newsplay. I can't quote you a source, so believe it or not as you like. I was expecting a much harder challenge. Unlikely a son would look that much like him. Possible, but improbable. The clothing will probably illuminate further. You haven't included any dates, nor physical descriptions/dimensions of the photographs; without which I can't assist you further. I could scour the web and probably roughly date them for you, given details of the photographs. I'm no expert. Brian On Sat, May 30, 2009 3:09 pm, JK wrote: > Have never seen anyone do a photo comparison on the list before so this > may be a first. > > It should pertain to anyone who is trying to verify old photographs to a > newer version of the same person > > I've posted 2 photos at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1krug.html > > They appear to be the same person. There are many similarities and I'm > not interested in a vote of whether members think they are the same > person. > > My problem arises in the fact that I believe the younger version has a > much larger skull. It appears to expand while the older version appears > to narrow. And I don't think skulls shrink with age. > The second problem I have is I don't believe the photographer whose > stamp is on the early picture was around anywhere near that time. But, > it could be explained by the picture being a reprint a number of years > later though. > > I'm looking for anyone who may have some expertise in doing comparisons. > I know that ears are as distinct as fingerprints and one ear seems very > close but I'm not convinced on the other. The eyes, square jaw, and nose > could be genetic. The older picture appears to have a cleft where the > younger one doesn't. This could be lighting or even an accident later in > life. > Also, the guy had 4 sons. At least one should look like him. > > As I said, no voting. Just constructive comments. > Maybe others will get some help from the intercourse > > JK >

The experts on the Photorestoration board at www.rootschat.com really know how to do exactly what you are looking for.. They know about photographers, and they will be able to check the nose and ears etc... Sign in and Read the instructions for uploading your photos they must be no larger than 500 kb., too small and it makes it difficult. They will probably be able to explain your concerns as well. Good Luck Gay ----- Original Message ----- From: "JK" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [HESSE] Photo Comparisons > Have never seen anyone do a photo comparison on the list before so this > may be a first. > > It should pertain to anyone who is trying to verify old photographs to a > newer version of the same person > > I've posted 2 photos at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1krug.html > > They appear to be the same person. There are many similarities and I'm > not interested in a vote of whether members think they are the same > person. > > My problem arises in the fact that I believe the younger version has a > much larger skull. It appears to expand while the older version appears > to narrow. And I don't think skulls shrink with age. > The second problem I have is I don't believe the photographer whose > stamp is on the early picture was around anywhere near that time. But, > it could be explained by the picture being a reprint a number of years > later though. > > I'm looking for anyone who may have some expertise in doing comparisons. > I know that ears are as distinct as fingerprints and one ear seems very > close but I'm not convinced on the other. The eyes, square jaw, and nose > could be genetic. The older picture appears to have a cleft where the > younger one doesn't. This could be lighting or even an accident later in > life. > Also, the guy had 4 sons. At least one should look like him.

Have never seen anyone do a photo comparison on the list before so this may be a first. It should pertain to anyone who is trying to verify old photographs to a newer version of the same person I've posted 2 photos at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1krug.html They appear to be the same person. There are many similarities and I'm not interested in a vote of whether members think they are the same person. My problem arises in the fact that I believe the younger version has a much larger skull. It appears to expand while the older version appears to narrow. And I don't think skulls shrink with age. The second problem I have is I don't believe the photographer whose stamp is on the early picture was around anywhere near that time. But, it could be explained by the picture being a reprint a number of years later though. I'm looking for anyone who may have some expertise in doing comparisons. I know that ears are as distinct as fingerprints and one ear seems very close but I'm not convinced on the other. The eyes, square jaw, and nose could be genetic. The older picture appears to have a cleft where the younger one doesn't. This could be lighting or even an accident later in life. Also, the guy had 4 sons. At least one should look like him. As I said, no voting. Just constructive comments. Maybe others will get some help from the intercourse JK

Thanx. That explains it a bit better. It seemed odd that none of the headers matched and appeared as if the name was continually changing. JK David Bennett wrote: > Gegenseitigen means mutual. It appears in the title only for the > first notice, but it appears in the text for all. All three articles > refer to the same fire insurance company. The first notice on 1 > September 1871, announces a meeting to be held on 6 October to elect > directors and conduct other important business. The second notice by > John Klein, President, on 2 Dec. 1871, announces a meeting on 18 Dec. > to discuss (take delivery of?) insurance policies. The third notice > on 2 Sept. 1872 announces the annual meeting on 7 Oct. 1872 to elect > three directors to replace three who are retiring. > > > On May 29, 2009, at 7:06 PM, JK wrote: > >> The one may say so but the three don't all use the same phrase. >> >> You can't be saying that the other two mean exactly the same thing >> >> Or are you? >> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> In a message dated 5/29/2009 2:35:31 PM Central Daylight Time, >>> [email protected] writes: >>> >>> >>>> The ads don't appear to all support this name >>> "Feuerversicherung Gesellschaft von South Easthope" is "(Mutual) Fire >>> Insurance of South Easthope". >>> >>> They clearly DO support the name, the group, and the intent. >>> >>> >>> >>> ************** >>> We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’ >>> diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. >>> (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/ >>> 355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml >>> cntnew00000007) >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Gegenseitigen means mutual. It appears in the title only for the first notice, but it appears in the text for all. All three articles refer to the same fire insurance company. The first notice on 1 September 1871, announces a meeting to be held on 6 October to elect directors and conduct other important business. The second notice by John Klein, President, on 2 Dec. 1871, announces a meeting on 18 Dec. to discuss (take delivery of?) insurance policies. The third notice on 2 Sept. 1872 announces the annual meeting on 7 Oct. 1872 to elect three directors to replace three who are retiring. On May 29, 2009, at 7:06 PM, JK wrote: > The one may say so but the three don't all use the same phrase. > > You can't be saying that the other two mean exactly the same thing > > Or are you? > > [email protected] wrote: >> In a message dated 5/29/2009 2:35:31 PM Central Daylight Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> >>> The ads don't appear to all support this name >> >> "Feuerversicherung Gesellschaft von South Easthope" is "(Mutual) Fire >> Insurance of South Easthope". >> >> They clearly DO support the name, the group, and the intent. >> >> >> >> ************** >> We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’ >> diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. >> (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/ >> 355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml >> cntnew00000007) >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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

Can't help with a translation but have you seen this web page? http://www.seins.on.ca/history.php Terry ----- Original Message ----- From: "JK" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [HESSE] Translation > Looking for help with ads at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1.html > > They all refer to the same company which should be > "Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the Township of South Easthope" > > The ads don't appear to all support this name. > > Additionally, the names listed in the first ad, are they meant to > represent the FIRST board of directors as of Sept 1 1871. > > Thanks for all responses > > JK > > ------------------------------- > 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

The one may say so but the three don't all use the same phrase. You can't be saying that the other two mean exactly the same thing Or are you? [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 5/29/2009 2:35:31 PM Central Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > >> The ads don't appear to all support this name > > "Feuerversicherung Gesellschaft von South Easthope" is "(Mutual) Fire > Insurance of South Easthope". > > They clearly DO support the name, the group, and the intent. > > > > ************** > We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’ > diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. > (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml > cntnew00000007) > > ------------------------------- > 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

In a message dated 5/29/2009 2:35:31 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > The ads don't appear to all support this name "Feuerversicherung Gesellschaft von South Easthope" is "(Mutual) Fire Insurance of South Easthope". They clearly DO support the name, the group, and the intent. ************** We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’ diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml cntnew00000007)

Yes I have. I'm from the town. There is no history on that page and nothing that helps with my question concerning the translation. But thanx for the input Terry Leaman wrote: > Can't help with a translation but have you seen this web page? > http://www.seins.on.ca/history.php > > Terry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JK" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:35 PM > Subject: Re: [HESSE] Translation > > >> Looking for help with ads at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1.html >> >> They all refer to the same company which should be >> "Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the Township of South Easthope" >> >> The ads don't appear to all support this name. >> >> Additionally, the names listed in the first ad, are they meant to >> represent the FIRST board of directors as of Sept 1 1871. >> >> Thanks for all responses >> >> JK >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Looking for help with ads at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1.html They all refer to the same company which should be "Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the Township of South Easthope" The ads don't appear to all support this name. Additionally, the names listed in the first ad, are they meant to represent the FIRST board of directors as of Sept 1 1871. Thanks for all responses JK

Can anyone offer any information or tell me where I could possibly find information please about 4 Englishmen who were living in Offenbach in the Duchy of Hesse Dormstadt in 1819?. Number one, a Thomas Ruffin died there on 4th May 1819. Number two, a Thomas Keyse who was said also to be living there on the same date , he may have died there shortly afterwards. Number three, a John Hinde, who I think returned to England by 1822 Number four, a James Taylor, who I think also returned to England by 1822. This information comes from a will of Thomas Ruffin and some subsequent Chancery cases The one answer I would really like is the death date of Thomas Keyse and his burial. Thanks Terry

Hallo, I found this book on Google the other day, "Aus der Leidensgeschichte der lutherischen Gemeinde Rothenberg im 17. Jahrhundert." Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=eYLRAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gemeinde+Rothenberg&as_brr=1 I think it chronicles the area's transition from catholic to evangelical during the 1600s, and dozens of family names are mentioned as being present - or having moved there - at various times throughout the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s. I would love for someone to take a look at pages 13, 14, 32 36, 42 and 45 for me and tell me what they are saying about my HECKMANN and LENNER families. [I can pick up some things, but am missing many more!] Grüße, Jeff Heckman [email protected] Penfield, NY USA

Hello Ron, Fürstentums Waldeck just means "the Principality of Waldeck." Sachenbergen is likely a misspelling of Sachsenberg, a town just to the southeast of Münden. It was included as it was likely the Amt or administrative center for Münden. You can see where these places are simply by typing Munden into the search template on MapQuest. Best wishes, Doug Nicol -- Norman D. Nicol, Ph.D. Professional Genealogist/Family Historian Specializing in NE Pennsylvania, England, esp. Cornwall, and Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:33:05 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [HESSE] Birth place Greetings: I have the following confusing information: John George KUHNHENN born 17 March 1825 Münden, Furstenthums, Waldeck, Germany Wilhelmina KUHNHENN (his sister) born 19 May 1828 Münden, Sachenbergen, Waldeck, Germany >From records in the USA I am familiar with Münden and Waldeck, it is the other 2 places I need help with. Ron HABEL Vista, CA, USA Researching: KUHNHENN,ZACHER, VESPER, and URSPRUCH

On Tue, May 19, 2009 1:33 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Greetings: I have the following confusing information: > John George KUHNHENN born 17 March 1825 Münden, Furstenthums, Waldeck, > Germany > Wilhelmina KUHNHENN (his sister) born 19 May 1828 Münden, Sachenbergen, > Waldeck, Germany >>From records in the USA > I am familiar with Münden and Waldeck, it is the other 2 places I need > help > with. Well Furstenthums, Waldeck should be Fuerstenthum Waldeck (or replace the ue with a u and umlaut) Which is just a qualifier of the status of Waldeck like Kurfuerstenthum Hesse (Prince-electorate of Hesse). Sachenbergen should be Sachsenberg, a town in Waldeck. You can always figure out these misspellings by using the FHL site. I type in something like Waldeck and then click on the related places button. I then scroll through the list looking for possible candidates. HTH, Brian

Greetings: I have the following confusing information: John George KUHNHENN born 17 March 1825 Münden, Furstenthums, Waldeck, Germany Wilhelmina KUHNHENN (his sister) born 19 May 1828 Münden, Sachenbergen, Waldeck, Germany >From records in the USA I am familiar with Münden and Waldeck, it is the other 2 places I need help with. Ron HABEL Vista, CA, USA Researching: KUHNHENN,ZACHER, VESPER, and URSPRUCH **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823248x1201398651/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=May Excfooter51609NO62)

Does anyone know if there are any kind of directories available for Hanau for the years 1829 to 1839 that might show practicing pharmacists (apotheker)? I am looking for Philipp Christoph LIEDER who reportedly operated a pharmacy in Hanau during this time period. Thanks for your help! H LIEDER **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377005x1201454319/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=May Excfooter51609NO62)

Hi Karl, no I do not know Balthasar Hofmann. Thank you for contacting me. David ----- Original Message ----- From: Karl Schien<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [HESSE] Birstein Kirchenbücher and pastoral records Hello old members of that list! I am still alive and very busy in researching my local history. Hello David, Birstein belongs to the "Hessische Landeskirche von Kurhessen Waldeck". That Organisation did not allow the LDS filming the church books. The church books are archived in the church office of Birstein. The Hessische Landeskirche started filming the church books some years ago, but the books of Birstein are still not filmed. I think you don't need them. I took a look in the book: Pfarrergeschichte des Sprengels Hanau ("Hanauer Union") bis 1968, Marburg 1984, Page 522: 14. Pfarrer of Birstein HOFFMANN, Johann Christian, 1657-1662 Aus Sontra. Born in Sontra Imm. Bremen 1648, studied in Bremen 1650-1651 Pfarrverseher (?curate?) in Edenkoben-Walsheim, 1651-1653 Pfarrer in Weingarten (Pfalz), 1654-1656 Pfarrer in Langenselbold, 1657-1662 Pfarrer in Birstein und Unterreichenbach, 1667-1672 Interimspfarrer in Osthofen, 1677-1694 und 1698ff. Pfarrer in Nußloch. Das älteste der noch vorhandenen Kirchenbücher in Birstein ist von Pfarrer Hoffmann angefangen worden. The oldest church book of Birstein begins in 1657 by him. I got a list of all names registered in the old church book between 1660 and 1700. There is mentioned only: Balthasar Hofmann, Gerichtschöffe (juryman). Are you familiar with him? I don’t believe that he his something to do with Pfarrer Hofmann. Hofmann is a common name in Germany and the Birstein area. I hope I could help you. Greetings from Germany Karl ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message