TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-03 > 1301244429

From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] re irregular date
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:47:09 -0700
References: <000a01cbec8c$ce8a7c70$6b9f7550$@net> <007d01cbec90$453a3740$cfaea5c0$@net><>
In-Reply-To: <>

However, if (after you've done the checks recommended here) the record
clearly says Feb 29, 1767, even though you know this is impossible, I
believe it should be entered with that date (but with a sort date of Feb
28 or Mar 1), since that is what the record says. And you'll just have
to let it be an irregular date. (You could/should add a note in the Memo
or in the CD stating what exactly you saw, e.g. the actual image.)

(A researcher is responsible for reporting his/her findings, not for
those findings being correct or incorrect in the original, and certainly
not for "interpreting" the evidence [as in this case, deciding what date
it "must have been"].)

Bob Geldart wrote:
> Or could be February 27th? Ive often seen the 7 and 9 look alike on
> old documents, depending on how the crossbar/loop appears
> Bob
> At 3/27/2011 11:04 AM, Teresa Elliott wrote:
>> Could it be the 28th and the handwriting is just hard to read?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Linda Rosedahl
>> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:40 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: [TMG] re irregular date
>> Rechecked the death record from Sweden It was Feb. 29 1767. So she either
>> died on the 28th or March 1. The Priest wrote this so who knows. It does
>> make sense and I had forgotten the rule about Feb 29th. Thanks for the
>> clarification. Linda
> Bob Geldart
> Maynard, Massachusetts

This thread: