This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1887.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In regards to the male age 16 to 25 counts, I am reasonably confident that the indication is a "3" rather than a "2". This is more due to the other "2"s being quite distinctive with a very well defined horizontal base. The "3" is not so much distinguishable EXCEPT in comparison to other characters. Most of the "1"s and "2" are reasonably distinctive. There are also a couple of clear "4"s and "5"s on the page for comparison (William YATES, Robert WILSON, William SUTE). There is one very distinctive "3" in the female 10 to 15 category for William YATES. In my view, the figure for age 26 to 25 cannot be easily reconciled as a "1", "2", "4" or "5" when compared to the writing for other figures on this page. Although I also do NOT think it matches closely to the "3" in the William YATES household, to me it looks MORE like a "3" than anything else. Two other notes are in order. First, because the counts are for age ranges in a single household with one age range or ten years duration (under age 10), one of six years duration (age 10 to 15) and a third of ten years duration (age 16 to 25) ALL counts are skewed towards LOWER numbers. There are a LOT of "1"s, fewer "2"s and only a few "3"s, "4"s and "5"s on each page. There FEWER "2"s in the narrower age range (10 to 15) than in the wider age range (under age 10), which is statistically expected. There are fewer "2"s in the upper ten year age range (16 to 25) than in the lower age range (under age 10). This is an expected result for two reasons. First, some children are dying and new children enter the counts only as infants in the under age 10 category. Second, in the upper age ranges, both male and female, but especially female, children are leaving the household, bringing these counts lower. Take a look at the page count distributions for various age groupings, IF the figures for John ROPER (age 16 to 25), Starling CARRELL (age 26 to 44), William SUTE (age 10 to 15); Nicholas MATLOCK (age 10 to 15) , John McCAIN (Under age 10) are interpreted as "3"s: Male Under 10: "0" (10); "1" (4); "2" (3); "3" (1); "4" (1); "5" (1) Male 10 to 15: "0" (15); "1" (3); "2" (2); "3" (0); "4" (0); "5" (0) Male 16 to 25: "0" (9); "1" (4); "2" (3); "3" (1); "4" (0); "5" (0) Male 26 to 44: "0" (12); "1" (11); "2" (0); "3" (0); "4" (0); "5" (0) Male 45 or more: "0" (12); "1" (10); "2" (0); "3" (0); "4" (0); "5" (0) Female Under 10: "0" (6); "1" (10); "2" (2); "3" (0); "4" (1); "5" (0) Female 10 to 15: "0" (14); "1" (4); "2" (1); "3" (2); "4" (0); "5" (0) Female 16 to 25: "0" (8); "1" (10); "2" (1); "3" (1); "4" (0); "5" (0) Female 26 to 44: "0" (9); "1" (9); "2" (1); "3" (1); "4" (0); "5" (0) Female 45 or more: "0" (15); "1" (6); "2" (0); "3" (0); "4" (0); "5" (0) * The only really CLEAR "3" is that which appears in William YATES' record. If NONE of the ambiguous records shows a "3", TWO "4"s and ONE "5". I do NOT think that ALL of the ambiguous figures ARE "3"s. On balance, I think that the figures for John ROPER, William SUTE and John McCAIN are probably "3"s. I suspect that the figures for Starling CARRELL and Nicholas MATLOCK are NOT. * * * As for the count for under age 10, what I see is ditto marks in that category for BOTH John ROPER and George CARRELL, the immediately following name. But I also see a mark that could be a "1" straddling the space BETWEEN these two ditto marks. That is, I interpret this mark as possibly representing that EITHER John ROPER or George CARRELL had one male under age 10. I am reasonably confident that the Census return reflects that ONE of these men had a young man under age to in the household. I am NOT confident as to which. As you have previously shown, there is a young man age 10 to 15 shown in John ROPER's 1810 Census return. What does the 1810 Census record for George CARRELL/CARROLL show? "United States Census, 1810," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XHLM-J77 : accessed 02 Apr 2014), George Carroll, Not Stated, Caswell, North Carolina; citing "1810 United States Federal Census," Ancestry.com; p. 51, line 280, NARA microfilm publication M252, roll 38, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C.; FHL microfilm 0337911. Note: There were TWO George CARRELLs in the 1800 Census. * Getting a look at the Tax Lists, is also important. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>