GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-04 > 1081964217
From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Batch 79 FTDNA
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:36:57 EDT
In a message dated 4/13/2004 10:10:30 PM Central Standard Time,
writes:
> Fast, accurate, inexpensive, choice of any two! With the mention of
> waiting
> on QC, perhaps # 2 is eating away at # 1. The old saying, "Two out of
> three,"
> well maybe this time it is only one. As long as it is the right one,
> accurate! They say that Patience is a virtue, but that is just another of
> my "short
> lists!"
Too many orders with insufficient capacity is the real problem. I wonder why
FTDNA continues to accept new groups and individuals while the problems
continue. It is inconvenient for an existing group to migrate to a new firm, so they
probably won't want to change.
One alternative for new groups, who would ordinarily opt for FTDNA, is
DNAHeritage's sale price, which is only slightly higher than FTDNA's 25-marker
price. Their 43 markers are compatible with both FTDNA and RG. If a group doesn't
like DNAHeritage's service, they can migrate to FTDNA (or RG). Hopefully, FTDNA
will catch up within the next few months.
Both Sorenson and U. of Arizona provide accurate results. The difference
seems to be in the level and type of help in interpeting results provided by the
various marketing firms, i.e., Relative Genetics, GeneTree (both part of
Sorenson), DNAHeritage (uses Sorenson for testing), and FTDNA.
This thread: