From: charlesellson@btinternet.com   
      
   On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:50:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:18:47, Charles Ellson   
   > wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):   
   >>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:11 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP,  FamilySearch etc)   
   >>>do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common source?  I'm   
   >>>talking about the actual physical scanning, not the transcriptions.   
   >>>Might a piece of a record that is damaged or missing, possibly be   
   >>>better from another source?   
   >>>   
   >>Parish records can be scanned by (or on behalf of) various   
   >>organisations. Using just Cheshire RO holdings as an example, these   
   >>include Dioceses, universities, the LDS and others. Some records can   
   >>be re-scanned by the same organisation or another one; this can   
   >>involve different lighting methods (e.g. colour instead of the black   
   >>and white on older filmings) with the illumination tweaked to cope   
   >>with different original materials and inks. Pages (and loose pieces   
   >>tucked into them) can occasionally be missed in one filming but not in   
   >>others as can the indexing of individual records. Re the LDS alone,   
   >>some material has been filmed more than once and later also indexed   
   >>more completely (e.g. birth dates added where they were originally   
   >>ignored).   
   >   
   >Probably a good source where there's a bit of the original record   
   >missing or damaged, is the Bishop's Transcripts; although copies,   
   >they're ones made usually within a year or the originals, and while they   
   >can include errors in the copying, they _can_ include corrections.   
   >   
   >It's not always obvious whether a scan _is_ of the original or the   
   >Bishop's Transcript; a rough indication is, where they're using the   
   >printed forms, the entry numbers on the original lines tend to be   
   >preprinted on the original but handwritten on the BTs, and where they   
   >aren't, tend to be neater (as they're copied up by the same person all   
   >at once, whereas the originals are added by differing scribes and/or   
   >with varying inks/pens).   
   >   
   >(The Durham Diocese ones held by the LDS are I think all BTs.)   
   >   
   Parish registers tend to be a continuous record with no breaks at the   
   year end while BT's are usually collections of records arranged in   
   single years with the first record of the year at the top of the page.   
   I think I have only seen one BT which was recorded on the same page   
   layout as a pre-printed parish register.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)