In my opinion, image copies can in some cases be superior to the original because electronic images can be magnified for closer scrutiny. One case in point is the Dempsey Pace Bible which has been transcribed to show the marriage of Dempsey and Elisabeth Rainwaters as occurring in 1812. Then the transcriber noted: "After many of their children were born?" Examining the image at 400% magnification convinces me that the date is actually 1802, with the "0" written so long and skinny that it appears to be a "1" (the writer was approaching the margin of the bible, and apparently was saving space in order to have room for the "2"). So, the use of an image allowed me to reach a conclusion that might not be evident with the original in hand unless the examiner had a strong magnifying glass. Images of this Bible are in the PSA archives if you want to check it out. Joe Anderson > Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:09:02 -0800> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q > Generally, image copies (microfilm or digital) are treated as originals rather than derivatives. But we should identify that we are looking at an image copy rather than the original document. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009