Hi Geoff... I spotted an error on the IGI that I have confirmed as incorrect twice with the Surrey Family History Soc. My ancestor, Henry Moss SKILLING married Jane GOVER in the 1850s, but the IGI incorrectly shows that he married a "Jane Goon." I had originally sent away to Surrey to get info about the marriage and received the correct parish entry showing Gover. A few years later I was puzzled to find that the IGI had him marrying Jane Goon. So I sent away again to Surrey asking them to check for me & received the reply that the marriage entry clearly states he married Jane Gover. They provided all the info about the entry showing witnesses etc... As you say Geoff, the IGI is a marvelous resource to be used as a guide, but everyone should try to see the entries themselves to be sure about the info. You don't want to be searching for the wrong names and years later have to throw away years of your efforts due to a slip-up like this. Believe me, I am not knocking the IGI. My research would not be ANYWHERE near what it is today without this incredible resource. Regards, Chris Bradshaw bradshawchris@home.com Searching for BRADSHAW in Paisley Scotland SMITH/COOPER in Rosedale North Riding Yorkshire HAY in Cruden Bay Aberdeenshire Scotland FORAN/WHITE Buffalo NY and Canada WEBSTER in Wexford Ireland MCDERMID/MCNEIL/TAYLOR IN Argyllshire Scotland GORING/SKILLING/GOVER in Surrey TAYLOR/FINNIE in Aberdeenshire Irish HENDERSONs in Ontario Irish CAIRNS/CARNS/KEARNS in Norfolk Co. Ontario DOWSON/BARKER/HALTON in North Riding Yorkshire ----- Original Message ----- From: <MissEv1017@aol.com> To: <WHITE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: February 7, 2000 6:37 PM Subject: [WHITE] Re: Reliability of IGI > The following is a copy of a letter published in the Warwickshire newsletter > by one of it's subscribers. I have found much information at this site but I > think Geoff's letter is informative and wisely helpful. > I quote: > > I spent a few hours last night satisfying my curiosity > about the IGI records. > I have many photocopies of pages from the Chilvers Coton > parish registers that I made when I was in Nuneaton, and I decided to > see whether the LDS transcribers had managed to do a better job on the > dark and ink-smudged parts than I. The result was surprising. These were > mostly pages from 1650 to 1700, and I used the online IGI. > Where a name was dark and smudged but still understandable, > there was often no entry on the IGI. Where the handwriting was doubtful, > but understandable because the same names appeared clearer in other > parts, there was no entry OR a completely wrong name had been recorded. > Then, I noticed that only about half of the names had been transcribed - > mostly those which were so clear that there could be no doubt. The > majority of the correct records were the ones which had a C or M batch > number - which I believe were mostly transcribed from the Bishop's > Transcripts. Those without the C or M prefix were only vaguely reliable. > My conclusion is that whoever did the transcribing of those > particular records was rather slipshod and in a hurry and had no really > clear idea of old handwriting. I found 'c' recorded as 'r' and 'B'; '7' > as '1' or '9'; 'e' as 'o', and so on. I also believe that the > transcribers were in Salt Lake and worked from photographs of registers. > They would usually have no local knowledge and were perhaps not even > familiar enough with English names to question their own interpretation. > One interesting entry, which was faded but still legible with > a knowledge of the district and the names that occurred frequently was > the marriage between William Coxe and Dorothy Brighton on September 16th > 1654 at ARBURY, the estate of the Newdigate family in the parish of > Chilvers Coton.. There were two entries on the IGI for this marriage: > William Coxe to GARTRYE (no attempt to decipher the surname) in FEBRUARY > 1654 in Nuneaton. The faint but legible September has been ignored and > Arbury is interpreted as February. > The other IGI entry is for William Coxe and Dorothie BEETON, 18th > September 1654 (wrong date) in Nuneaton (a different place at that time, > which would even cause a researcher to waste a lot of time searching > Nuneaton records). These are both entries with the 'M' prefix for the > batch number. > This was, I would point out again, Chilvers Coton. I have no idea > about other districts. Perhaps they are better. > I have the feeling that my Richard and Hannah White may still be > lurking in Chilvers Coton but are hiding in the dark pages. > The moral is that which genealogists have said for a long > time: use the IGI as a guide only, but then check the originals, perhaps > through a local FHS which has often transcribed them. > Geoff in Helsinki > >