From: onlyme101@btinternet.com   
      
   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.)   
      
   Thanks for this. Unfortunately, due to Sod's Law,  the B.Ts for Norfolk   
   start in 1687 and the marriage I am looking for was probably 1686 !!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)