APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2006-04 > 1144214464


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Clerk's copy -- original vs. derivative
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:21:04 -0500
In-Reply-To: <C058BE26.A64%persisto@earthlink.net>


Craig wrote:
>Elizabeth, you did write that a "Official Record Copy" would be treated as
an original source,

Craig, what I wrote was this:
> "OFFICIAL RECORD COPY:
> A clerk's official copy, usually entered into a register; it is treated as
> an original when the original does not exist or cannot be accessed."

If ASCII permitted, we could boldface, italicize, or underscore the last 10
words. They are critical. If a county's original probate packets have been
destroyed, but the probate registers exist, then the clerk's "official
record copy" of the will would be treated as an original. If the original
probate packets still exist and the handwritten, signed copy of the will
still exists, the clerk's copy would *not* be genealogically treated as the
original or the best evidence.


> Now, you say that it if it is a transcript from a long-gone original,
>it isn't original afterall.

Craig, what I said was:
> Nor would we consider a modern clerk's "abstract" drawn from a
> full record made 100 years ago to be an "original" record. The original
> would be that full record made 100 years ago.

An abstract is not a transcript; and this statement refers to an original
that is still extant, not to a "long-gone original."


>a source is just a form of EVIDENCE which are may not be TRUE,
>and which must be weighed against other EVIDENCE.
>I hope I've at least got that part right.

A source is not necessarily evidence. Sources exist that offer no evidence
at all for the problem we have at hand. Earlier today we had a question from
a researcher asking what to do when the sources she checked for a client
provided no evidence. Those SOURCES obviously seemed relevant to the issue
or she would not have searched them. But they yielded no relevant
INFORMATION.

Let's try another way of visualizing this: We all have bodies. Our bodies
contain eyes and ears (parts of the body, just as pages are part of a book)
that provide visual information and aural information. With every stimulant,
we process that information and come up with mental conclusions.

- Our bodies are the ultimate SOURCE of everything.
- The sights and sounds generated by certain parts provide INFORMATION.
- The conclusions we draw from that information is our EVIDENCE that
something occurred.


>That is why I like land records.

Aha! Now we found something to agree on!


>Very little room for error in land records.

Except in our individual interpretations of the evidence we draw from the
information in those records :).

Elizabeth


----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
*Evidence: Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*
*QuickSheet: Citing Online Historical Resources, Evidence! Style*
*Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers,
Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians*

This thread: