PHILLY-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > PHILLY-ROOTS > 2002-03 > 1016483198


From: "Jo Schwartz" <>
Subject: Re: [PHILLY-ROOTS-L] Readability
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:40:40 -0500
References: <000c01c1cea7$15979340$da185044@walngs01.pa.comcast.net> <00c001c1ceb2$a9c44f80$2b5bc0d8@ch8s101> <018b01c1ceb1$d76d91e0$8901a8c0@comcast.net>


Carole and everyone interested,

The readability of the vital statistics films in every category is a flip of
the coin, with one notable exception that I can remember (I don't remember
much any more<g>). The marriage indexes from 1885-1915 are in excellent
shape, since they are typed AND alphabetized. I can't generalize about
any of the other films (there *are* a couple of death index books which for
some reason are actually alphabetized in one or two post 1900 years, but I
don't know if they are filmed).

You'll find every combination of readable and unreadable that you can
imagine. It isn't just by category or by year. Within a single year, the
indexes for the letter of the alphabet you need may or may not be readable.
It may even vary by month within the same letter.

Deaths and births are generally worse than marriages because there were more
of them. HSP tells people to forget about the indexes and just browse the
entire year of the registers (which aren't consistently better IMHO), but
that is torture to me, because the registers are not in chronological order
but rather in *registration* order. Births, especially can drive you insane
because you don't know whether a March birth, for instance, was actually
recorded in March, or April or even 6 months later. The dates repeat as the
doctors filed returns periodically. I get nauseous thinking about it.

We all wish that a refilming of at least the indexes could be done, but it
doesn't seem in the offing. The Archive tells me they have no money; even
the FLP staff is having trouble getting replacement readers. They can't even
go to a closet and get a toner cartridge! There's some kind of
requisition process they have to go thru.

I gotta stop. This is a sore I thought I'd learned to live with.

jo






jo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carole Francesca" <>
To: "Jo Schwartz" <>; <>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 02:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PHILLY-ROOTS-L] Link


>
> Jo- Is the same reability issue true for birth records? Is it better to go
> to the Archives than order those films from LDS?
> Carole
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jo Schwartz" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [PHILLY-ROOTS-L] Link
>
>
> > Sandi,
> > If you have reason to believe that the family stayed in Philadelphia,
you
> > could investigate the LINK marriages and births at the City Archives at
> 3101
> > Market St. If you are from out of town, you can rent the same films from
> the
> > LDS, although they are not always very readable. One of the advantages
> of
> > doing onsite research at the archives is that the marriage indexes up to
> > about 1880 or so are in ledgers in the research room and you don't have
to
> > depend on the vagaries of microfilm. Many of the death indexes are
also
> in
> > ledger form in the same place. Scanning ledgers, no matter how many
> people
> > they cover, is infinitely easier than scanning film.
> >
> >
> > Jo
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sandi Rhoads" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 01:02 PM
> > Subject: [PHILLY-ROOTS-L] Link
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am looking for information on Edward Link.
> > > I know he was born in Philly in 1863. His parents are immigrants.He
had
> > five children.He and wife Anna had four boys and one girl.
> > > I do not know the maiden name of Anna,
> > > Can anyone help?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sandi Rhoads
> > >
> > >
> > > ==== PHILLY-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > > +++ Does your server: Provide web email and browser email +++
> > > This is fine. Just be aware that if the web email account is not kept
> > > up with, your other emails may begin to bounce, unsubscribing you!
> > >
> >
> >
> > ==== PHILLY-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> > The webservice, Voyager.net, under various names, is, for now, bouncing
> > Rootsweb posts as SPAM. Hopefully this problem will be resolved.
> >
> >
>


This thread: