RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: jane k on Sunday 13 February 22 19:25 GMT (UK)
-
This entry for William Kerby in a burial record has been transcribed as 49 but I think it looks more like 69.
Any thoughts please
-
I agree with you
-
69 for me. I think the one above is 48
-
I'd say 49 as the lower acute ( less than 90 degrees ) bottom corner of the angled line goes into the previous column like the 4 above and 6's don't have bottom corner on the downward lines
-
I agree with dobfarm. For it to be a 6, it would be necessary to explain what the bottom corner (shown by the red line) is.
There's an apparent 4 above with a near-identical extension of the corner. Yes, the line in question has some soak-through, but this corner is clearly not soak-through.
If you can find a 6 on the page with the same corner, then go with 6. Otherwise it's clearly 4.
-
thanks - I will examine the rest of the page more closely
If it`s 49 he might be an ancestor`s brother but he could be the father if it`s 69
-
I still think it's a 6. It's not pointy like the 4 above. It has a curve to it.
-
Jane
Could you put up a larger piece, please, so that other numbers can be seen.
-
What is the source and the date? Is it possible to check the Bishop's Transcript? Or, if it is post-1837, you could check the age on the G.R.O. death entry.
-
here is a larger section, There `s a 4 at the top and a 6 months half way down
-
Here is another vote for 69. ;D
Looking at the other examples of "4" on that page, I don't think this one is wide enough. The scribe has quite a long horizontal stroke in his "4". The number in question looks a lot slimmer - just like the other "6" (6 months).
-
Yes. I'm more sure of the 6 now, As Karen says, it's more like the one in 6 months.
add - the marksto the left are smudged
-
Thanks. It`s quite exciting if it is as it points towards another generation that I didn`t know about.
Our ancestor Isaac Kerby lived at Barclay Court which is where this chap died
-
I don't think there is any doubt, 69
Carol
-
69
-
Having now examined the full double-page from St John the Baptist Clerkenwell, I have no doubt that William Kerby's age is 49 years.
The writer's 6 has a right-wards hook or bend at the top. It can be seen clearly in the age for Joshua Rigby in the clip posted yesterday and I have clipped and attached others from the double-page here.
I have also clipped and attached other examples of 4 from this double-page.
Finally, taken from the next double-page, the age for the entry of 64 year-old Richard Molinoux.
-
Final 2 clips:
-
I don't accept your argument. The number in the example we are looking at is cramped and does have a curve but is smudged. Also, I see that, in your last example, there is a definite backward loop at the bottom. It is this loop in the figure that we are being asked to identify that has been smudged. The 4 is more angular.
-
It would really be best if, as Watson has suggested, we could get some other sources to ascertain the DofB or age of the person rather than rely on a smudged entry.
-
I'm leaning towards 49, for similar reasons to horselydown86.
Other examples of '6' have evidence of the pen stroke starting upwards, followed by an anti-clockwise curl into the main down stroke - a kind of hook or loop. In some cases this is very faint, but I can't see it at all in this one.
The point or angle at bottom left also seems very similar to the one in '4'. By adjusting things like levels, brightness, contrast and gamma I can't get it to disappear, but it stays remarkably similar to the one on the line above. (Contrast Thomas Nunn, 3 lines above.)
(Sorry, the image is a bit wide, but I think it's needed for clarity. Scroll right to see the ages.)
-
Thankyou everyone. Following arthurk`s blown up version I am thinking it is a 4 after all. So far I haven`t found any other records for this William but I will pursue it.
I`m very cross with him for not making a will - that might have answered a lot of questions!
I really appreciated you all taking time to look at this for me
-
Devil's advocate. Arthur - I've used your image to show what I see. The tail that you see is behind a smudge and I see it as including the curl back which is simi;ar to the clear 6 in hd's image.
Gadget
-
Except:
(1) where the loop of a 6 is long enough to cross the existing stroke and form a tail, it curls downwards rather than leftwards
(2) the number we're looking at seems to have a very angular shape, whereas the 6's are much more rounded
(3) the point/angle at bottom left remains visible even after fading out the image, suggesting it is more likely to be a deliberate stroke, made with pressure, than an accidental smudge - in fact looking at it again, it's the darkest part of the whole number, which would be consistent with taking the pen to that point and reversing a bit before going off to the right
-
We'll agree to differ, Arthur. The majority on the thread see it as 69 :)
The figure is disguised by a very large smudge. As I said earlier, we need other information to decide. The date of death - 69 or 49 - would give possible date of birth info. Then search for marriage and baptisms/births of offspring, for example. I think that's we've all done in our own research.
I wouldn't accept this document as the only confirmation of one date or another.
Add - b.c 1725 or 1745 if buried Dec 1794
Attached another 6 from previous page:
-
I'm inclined to go with 49. The scribe had a distinctive way of writing 4's, all in one movement without the pen lifting off the paper, something like in the image below.
There was a William Kirby who was christened 31 March 1745 at St Andrews Holborn, which is not too far from Clerkenwell. The date is perfect for a 49 year old on 28 Dec 1794. Could be coincidence though.
-
I saw that baptism and thought it a possible. :)
Parents - George and Mary
-
I'm inclined to go with 49. The scribe had a distinctive way of writing 4's, all in one movement without the pen lifting off the paper, something like in the image below.
There was a William Kirby who was christened 31 March 1745 at St Andrews Holborn, which is not too far from Clerkenwell. The date is perfect for a 49 year old on 28 Dec 1794. Could be coincidence though.
The Kerby we are definitely related to is Isaac Kerby who was born about 1746 (died Clerkenwell aged 64 in 1810) - so possibly this William`s brother - but I haven`t been able to find a birth record for him. Isaac was a watchmaker, married in Clerkenwell and remained there -but there also seem to be links with Gloucestershire. There was also a Martha Kerby who was witness at Isaac`s wedding - can`t find her anywhere either!
-
There's a baptism for an Isaac Kerby 18 Aug 1745, Gloucester.Parents Jacob and Elizabeth.
Also one dated 18 Aug 1746. Same place and parents. This one is damaged so one might be the BT and /one of them/ is wrongly dated
-
Thanks Gadget - yes I am aware of that one but I trawled through all of the births for children of Jacob and Elizabeth in that parish and there isn`t a Martha. There is a William but born in 1754 so not likely to be the chap we have been looking at here. Several of the children also have the middle name Price - presumably the mother`s maiden name and that doesn`t appear anywhere else in our family. Several of our family have the middle name "Blanch" so I presume that at some point a Kerby married a Blanch
-
Our ancestor Isaac Kerby lived at Barclay Court which is where this chap died
Is your ancestor's father's name William ?
add:
The Isaac in the 1851 (b.c. 1872 and living Barclay Court), seems to have been bpt Clerkenwell 5 May 1771, Parents were Isaac and Sarah. Was he the Isaac Blanch who died in 1851? Also, was the father, Isaac, the one buried in 1810?
You seem to have a lot of Kerbys in Barclay Court. Land Tax, Apprenticeship fees.
You've probably got all these though.
-
We are definitely descended from the Isaac who died in 1810 (who married Sarah Rosser). Isaac Blanch Kerby is one of his sons. We descend from another son, Benjamin.
I haven`t been able to find out who Isaac`s father was. I found this burial record for William by accident really and feel he must be related because he was at Barclay Court but I can`t find out how.
-
We'll agree to differ, Arthur. The majority on the thread see it as 69 :)
The figure is disguised by a very large smudge. As I said earlier, we need other information to decide. The date of death - 69 or 49 - would give possible date of birth info. Then search for marriage and baptisms/births of offspring, for example. I think that's we've all done in our own research.
I wouldn't accept this document as the only confirmation of one date or another.
Add - b.c 1725 or 1745 if buried Dec 1794
Attached another 6 from previous page:
Gadgets right its a 6
-
A baptism to add to the search:
24 November 1728, St Pancras Old Church
William son of Elizabeth Kirbey and Wilks, illegitimate