BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT-L ArchivesArchiver > BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT > 2007-11 > 1195416163
From: Jeanne Gold <>
Subject: Re: [B&D] ages at census?
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:02:43 -0800
As others have already replied, it should be age at last birthday.
Having said that, I have found a bit of trickery which has helped me
deal with the potential pitfall of the reported age being wrong (maybe
someone made a mathematical error or the age was misremembered or not
I take the year in question (eg 1901) and subtract the reported age (3)
and get 1888. I then subtract one more year, and get a range: 1887-1888.
One of the things this range does is account for when a birthday occurs,
either before _or_ after the date the question was reported/asked.
The best part, though, is when you have several census/other records and
can start to see a pattern and make some deductions. Here's an example
of one of my "problem" children:
Recorded DateAgeEstimate (source)
UK1861 (Apr 7)9m1860 Jun-Jul (census)
UK1871 (Apr 2)101860-1861 (census)
UK1881 (Jan 14)201860-1861 (census)
UK1881 (Apr 3)201860-1861 (marriage)
US1895 (Jan 1)341860 [*1] (census)
US1900 (Feb 17)371862-1863 (marriage)
US1900 (Jun 5)341865 [*2] (census)
US1910 (Apr 20)491860-1861 (census)
US1914 (Aug 12)541860-1861 (child's birth)
US1920 (Jan 23)631856-1857 (census)
US1930 (Apr 12)691860-1861 (census)
US1939 (Sep 5)Jun 8, 1865 (SS Application)
[*1] chances are birthday is not on Jan 1st
[*2] from this record, I can deduce birthday is after Jun 5th
This is typical of the discrepencies you'll find. But if you look
carefully, most of the records show 1860-1861. The big discrepencies
came when (1) he married a *much* younger woman in 1900 and (2) when he
applied for his social security number. The 3rd big discrepency is the
1920 census and this may be due to someone else answering on his behalf.
So leave out the big discrepencies, and I think it's fair to deduce,
this man believed he was born June 8, 1860.
Albany, OR, USA
|Re: [B&D] ages at census? by Jeanne Gold <>|