Hugh Ainsley wrote: > Would that the problem was confined to the TNA - but its undoubtedly becoming a trend. And a very worrying trend from the point of view of accurate and thorough research. Those filming records to supply digital images for websites can and do make mistakes. It is yet another way for errors to creep in - just like with indexes and transcripts. I have come across this problem with the Masters' and Mates' Certificates on Ancestry, the originals of which are in the National Maritime Museum. When I was working on the BBC's recent "Clydebuilt" documentary about Cutty Sark I asked to see the original files of several crew members. An NMM staff member told me that was not necessary because they were all filmed and on Ancestry. I insisted on seeing the original records and discovered that not all the documents had been filmed. Replacement certificates were issued when one had been lost - for example in a shipwreck. So it is not uncommon to find more than one Master's or Mate's certificate for an individual in a file, together with two application forms - often dated some years apart and containing details of different ships and voyages. In some cases Ancestry don't seem to have realised this and have only filmed one certificate and its supporting documents. Important information is thus lost to researchers who think they have seen everything on Ancestry. Thirty odd years ago, when I first joined SoG, one of the lessons that Anthony Camp and others drummed into our newbie heads was "Always look at the original record". That remains equally true today but it appears that TNA and some Record Offices have forgotten it. Caroline Gurney