I have to say, You people are amazing. I had a question and, literally, within minutes I was getting good answers and great advice. There is no doubt that I will ask Santa for Fred's book, In Their Words. (Fred: I know of three folks to whom you will owe a commission.) Also, Bronwyn, Roman and the PD, thank you for your good suggestions. One thing I have done is gone back to the FHC and, using a rather decent digital camera, I was able to photograph every record in which I was interested, plus some of the other records on a single page which now allows me to "examine" the handwriting of the Priest as well. I asked at the FHC and you are allowed to take photos as long as the information you are dealing with is not restricted. Of course, on simply an observational note: Everyone has a different handwriting and some are really poor, while questioning them, you bless those who took their time and wrote in a nice, neat, legible manner. When looking at all of these microfilms, you wonder about the person who wrote the original records: What is the sense of keeping a record, if you write in such a manner that it is not legible? Well, maybe there are many reason for doing that, one being, perhaps a person wants to comply with a law, but does not wish the "Law" to use the information, among others. But more than likely, as I am quickly learning, it was most probably caused by age. However, one thing I have a hard time understanding is "Why take the trouble to microfilm a record if the microfilm is blurred, or the exposure so overexposed that it is not worth anyone's while to bother with it? I suppose there are good answers there too. Anyway, thank you all. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone on the list and to all your family members. John