TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-01 > 0946926063


From: "Ken Nelson" <>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: Source Surety Values
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:01:03 -0500


I use surety values to give an idea of what kind of sources I am dealing
with. Most of my sources are published sources and as a result receive a 2,
even when I do not think they merit it. Only rarely does a source get a
three--when there is absolute surety--a modern day birth record, for
instance. contemporary and primary. Some family reports of genealogy, that
were without documentation, without

What hooked me is the mention of the Essex County VRs. These are indeed not
primary as we would think of a source being primary and contemporary. These
were compiled from Court records, town records, church records and private
Bible records. if you examine the written vital records, it tells in a
shorthand form where it found the data in this compilation of VRs. There is
a code used. In Haverhill, MA, for instance, G.R. 1 means that the data was
taken fron the gravestone record of Pentucket Cemetery, or C.R. 1 means that
the data was found in the First Parish Church records. The codes and
explanations are found on pages 5 through 8 of volume 1 of the Haverhill
Vital Records--other towns ought to be about the same place in their
respective volumes. So the vital records are not primary sources as the
title would seem to indicate but rather compiled from a variety of sources,
which would have a variety of levels of integrity. Burial records have not
been found, by me anyway to be that great of a source for many things. But
because of the overall integrity of the work I give it a two. There is no
knowing who compiled the data. Was it an out of work brother of a
bureaucrat. Was it a member of a CCC camp, or WPA person. What training did
they have, if any in reading the longhand of a 17th or 18th century church
secretary.
A case in point is a "Vital Record" for a family in my line in northern
Maine. In it is my ggggrandmother who if we are to believe the "vital
records" was all of 10 or 11 when she married, even though for the rest of
her life she is recorded as having been 24 at the time of marriage. Its an
unusual name so I do not believe, there was another of her namesake, but I
am not ruling it out yet. I am having to really dig to make sure this is
her.
My point is that vital records of old are not our modern statehouse
bureaucracy. They were compiled many years after the fact, most of them in
the early years of the 20th century(i.e. Haverhill 1911, Amesbury, 1913).
They should rate no more than a 2. But for some of us, that is as good as we
are ever going to get. Most of us do not have the luxury of reading the
court records to ensure that the record was reported properly. Most of us
will have to make do with the compiled records, but our readers ought to be
forewarned that there were sources behind the VRs that we have not seen with
our own eyes. A 3 is reserved for an instance when I have the original in my
hand and see it with my own eyes.

This is how I use the surety values--to remind myself of what kind of
document I had in hand to make the assertion I am making.
Just my $ .25 worth.
Ken Nelson


-----Original Message-----
From: bob gillis <>

>I have used the published Essex County MA Vital Records to 1850 and I
>generally assign a 3 to the information in these volumes from town,
>court or church records

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: