RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: John-76 on Saturday 13 September 25 14:54 BST (UK)
-
We have been trying to find my great grandfather for many years. Unfortunately we hit a brick wall at where he claimed he was born and the year. Nothing other than this info.
In our searching process I did a Y-DNA test in 2015 and now I'm thinking about redoing the test but upgrading to the Y111 test. The cost is approximately double and my question is will the Y111 test vs the Y67 test from 10 years ago have a significant chance of enough increased data to make much of a difference?
I apologize if I didn't clearly state my question coherently, but genealogy is a very confusing subject for me.
Thank you for any suggestions.
John
-
If you went the ftDNA route for your yDNA test you should not need a retest, you should be able to pay a fee to unlock the 111 markers.
I went the 111 route and at 111 markers I have only 4 matches, with 3 of them having the Surname that I was hoping for.
The Genetic Distance to link for each of these is 3, 3, 3 & 4.
My 67 markers has 15 matches of which 4 are those that I have mentioned and at this level the Genetic Distance for the 11 is 7.
It may be worthwhile upgrading if you have exhausted your atDNA searching but given that yDNA testing is not that common I would set low expectations of a result.
I have just looked and for me to update from 111 to the Big700 would cost me $239, so I’ll pass on that myself.
Before you shell out more cash can you explain what your process is with regard to DNA matches and Shared DNA matches?
-
Thanks very much for the information. With the risk of being too long-winded I’ll give a synopsis of what I have.
My great grandfather, John Edward Blake died Oct 18, 1860 in Wilcox County, Alabama USA. The only information that he ever gave out is that he was born in New, Haven, Connecticut USA on October 19, 1814. No other information about him has ever been found. It has been surmised that he relocated from New Haven in the 1830s, but that is unknown. He died of appendicitis about 100 miles from his family and home while on a timber buying trip to northern Alabama USAf. We found his grave a couple of years ago. He was buried in a family cemetery (Cook family, no connection) and is the only non-Cook family member there. ???
My younger sister has started a quest to learn more and has subscribed to Ancestry Pro and is working with one of their people. I have forwarded my YDNA info to Ancestry rep and she utilized it with no more success than we already had, She suggested I upgrade to the next level test, That’s where I stand now. I tried some family history searching back in the 2010-2015 era and had no luck, I got frustrated and ceased considering it a futile undertaking.
Now do I spend the money for the Y111 test or spend even more for the one above that one? I hesitate to take the suggestion from an Ancestry employee as completely reliable since their main goal is to make money.
Thanks for hearing my story.
John
-
Personally I would treat YDNA as a last resort, I have done it and found some interesting matches, but only at the Y700 level, otherwise not really helpful.
I had missed your reply when I posted, so edited.
You have Ancestry DNA I would go with that, for a few members of the family.
It is a slow process building trees for matches and working out where they fit, but you should end up with a bunch of unexplained matches to chase down
I am currently hunting down matches with links into the 1750’s.
Ancestry currently has the biggest database so the ones to start with, but their tools are not the best.
Some of their tools are better than Ancestry, but the database is much smaller.
There are many posts on here and on line about methods of finding missing ancestors through DNA, so I won’t repost here.
The other thing would be to post some more details of your missing ancestors through DNA here.
There are some very experienced researchers, who like a tough challenge, you might be pleasantly surprised!
I am not as familiar with American research but there seems to be a John Blake recorded with spouse in the 1830 Connecticut Census of about the right age.
Finally take all ages with a good pinch of salt, I have them in my tree swinging a good ten years pre and post marriage or death of spouse.
Happy Hunting
-
John,
Hi, I could perhaps have been a little clearer myself.
I see you have indeed been researching for a while, I found your previous post on this topic.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=806941.msg6659293#msg6659293
As I previously said I would treat YDNA as a last resort. And it can be a waiting game.
Do you have any matches with the Blake name with your existing test?
My own test actually helped in a similar situation, a family who appeared in America in the 1670’s they knew not from where. However still has not given a documentary link or further detail than a more solid region of origin.
As you have been looking for a while I presume you have looked at the Blake family surname project at FTDNA?
I had a look while trying to answer your question more fully.
You may well already be aware of the below, but there seem to be a few other people actively looking at this family on both Ancestry and MyHeritage.
So if you have not already a MyHeritage test may be of some help
This would seem to give parents or potential parents or relatives to try to build a match tree around.
William Blake, Elihu Blake, John Edward Blake m Lydia Gridley 1797 Connecticut, they seem to be in New York State in 1850.
On the same page as them in the Early Connecticut Marriages is a Thomas Blake and Sally Smith.
Finally if you do go down the YDNA route, personally I would go Y700, it is expensive, but it gives much more granularity. A definite small group of matches to work with and a specific haplogroup.
I upgraded mine to give that extra detail and it has certainly helped.
Hopefully this helps you make your decision.
PS I don’t think Ancestry to YDNA at the moment, so would not be additional money for them.
PPS I think the answer will probably lie somewhere in the very low cM match groups that Pro Tools allows you to see, but this is currently a very manual process. Roll on a proper cluster tool from Ancestry.
Happy Hunting
-
Rabbit holes warning!
I just though out of amusement I would look for trees in my own Ancestry matches, with Blake and Connecticut as name and location mentioned, and lo and behold, Elizabeth Blake, which then led me to this. Fascinating reading.
A book on Our Folks - the Blake family of Connecticut and elsewhere, written in 1895.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61157/images/46155_b290055-00000?pId=1665635
-
I would agree with David and to reiterate what I suggested in my prior post, exhaust the Ancestry atDNA before upgrading to the Big700.
Even if you do upgrade, do set low expectations, and as with atDNA it can be a case of waiting for more tests to show. Whilst I did take the 111 test I only check to see if there have been new additions and in two years there have been no significant close matches.
If you have not already done so I suggest uploading the DNA to Gedmatch to see if there are any close matches there.
Something else to consider once the company troubles settle is to consider a test with 23&Me as they do have a lot of USA based testee’s.
-
Wow! You guys are really great. I appreciate all the suggestions and possible leads. My Sis is spearheading this though we'll be working together. Trying to ascertain his info after 30 or 40 years of various family members' unsuccessful attempts. I'm in my mid-80s and hope we find something concrete before I'm out'a here!
Thanks again and we'll be waiting on the new DNA test results!
Cheers,
John
-
No worries, you have to think sideways and upside down sometimes.
I would try building a tree down and around from Eli Whitney Blake as an ancestor proposed in one of the docs I found. Can you find an unaccounted for John.
I have just had a mini break through of my own, 40 plus years of looking by my parents, other relatives and I. Last reference is a note by my great great grandmother in about 1920 saying, some went to Edinburgh and some to Glasgow, they’re all dead now, these were people born in the 1820’s, just found some of them, so persevere!
As I said I am looking at clusters of families in the 10cM match range in America, they are very consistent, so not bad matches, just a challenge to work out where they fit!
If you can’t find the references I found, happy to share them, PM or email if you want to send your address by PM
-
Given that you are from the US, you will have more chance of finding a match. Maybe 80% of their tests have been sold in the US.
I'm pretty sure their tests are grossly overpriced over what they could be - about $450, which is more than you can get a full genome tests for.
When deciding to upgrade a Y test, look at your closest matches, and see what time range they suggest you are related. If you have matches they think could be related in the more feasible genealogical period (1750-1950) then a big-Y test might give you some more useful details. Otherwise you might get about the same info with Y-111.
This issue with big-Y is you need the other person to have took the test, and there's maybe only 100,000 people who have taken them.
As mentioned above, you will likely have more luck with atDNA, by going through all your matches to about 30-40cM and shared matches. You will be able to account for some of your lines, then be left with other clusters of matches that you don't know where they fit in. I think someone has written an overview of how that's done. It takes quite a lot of time.
I upgraded from 67 to big-Y. I think previously with 67 they suggested some of my closest matches could be in the earlier genealogical window, c. 1650. But when I got the big-Y results, I found they gave my closest matches with the common ancestor born in the window 1300. Given that most of these tests are sold in the US, I don't have much hope of a particularly close match coming up. It's probably more likely Ancestry will start to offer them at a reasonable price and find a closer match that way.
I have a few Y-DNA tests and none of them provide anything genealogically useful. We'd need millions of tests, like with atDNA, for it to really be useful. But they are useful for being able to provide a paternal immigration route. You don't necessarily need big-Y for that. If you are from the US, and have no known line back to the UK or elsewhere, you can potentially get an idea of where in Europe they came from.
-
I want to thank everyone for all the contributed suggestions and information. I'm forwarding all this info to my sister since she's taken the lead in this search. She is, as I am, very determined to finally exhaust the search for our Great Grandfather.
Thank you all very much!
John
-
John, also suggest to your sister to join the appropriate 'projects' on the FTDNA web site. Whilst the admins will suggest the BIG-Y, they are also very knowledgable on if if would actually be worth upgrading based on your current matches.
One thing to consider, is do you have any male offspring ? If not because of your age it may be worth considering the upgrade just to be sure thar you DNA sample is good, so that you don't loose the opportunity. Sorry of that's a bit morbid, but you see a lot of posts where people delayed testing relatives, and they then lost the chance.
Richard
-
Thanks Richard. Not morbid at all. I'm 83 and have many more years behind me than ahead. Hopefully it'll be a few years before my ticket's punched, but ??
We have one son who is 52 and I plan to encourage him to take the YDNA test also.
I believe my sis has done what you suggested, but I'll pass the idea along anyway.
Thanks very much for the ideas!
John
-
I am one of the best at spending other peoples money!
What I suggest is that each of your Siblings take an Ancestry DNA test.
If we assume that your Great Grandfather had children by other women then their offspring at the same generation as you and your siblings are likely to share 120cM with you and each of your siblings, but conversely the DNA shared could be in the range 10 - 324cM. If you are lucky to get a high cM match that may make finding the GGF a bit easier and it will be cross checked by your siblings test results.
Now when your siblings test do be aware that there may be issues, voice of experience there as my DNA test results led me to find my Brother to be my Half Brother.
If the tests are OK and if you also have a Brother then he could take a yDNA test as well.
Yes, this is a lot of testing but how DNA is inherited is by a random process and as such you and you siblings will share your parents DNA, just different Segments and multiple sibling DNA tests can mean more of the Paternal Genome is mapped out via the test.
Now what you can then do with the Ancestry tests of you and your siblings is to upload them into Gedmatch and combine them into a DNA Superkit, this in turn may lead to additional “DNA Cousins” being identified.
-
I am one of the best at spending other peoples money!
Hello
Jolly good, seriously thinking of a YDNA Test for my Male lineage only.
Any recommendations, anyone?
I'm not interested in locality, e.g., share birthplace with people born on Gruinard off Scotland, nor 3% Irish 7% French, 200% English ;D rubbish.
Mark
-
I am one of the best at spending other peoples money!
Hello
Jolly good, seriously thinking of a YDNA Test for my Male lineage only.
Any recommendations, anyone?
I'm not interested in locality, e.g., share birthplace with people born on Gruinard off Scotland, nor 3% Irish 7% French, 200% English ;D rubbish.
Mark
ftDNA do a few options, the more thorough and detailed the higher the cost.
The 111 would be my suggestion as a starter, if the results are then OK you can then pay the upgrade fee for the Big 700 (no additional test is required) which will unlock all the additional available data.
Do set low expectations, the lack of any significant quantity of yDNA testers limits the usefulness of a yDNA test.
With a 111 yDNA test you get the closest matches listed under their markers 111, 67, 37, 25 & 12.
For me there are 3, 15, 4, 7 & 741 yDNA matches listed against each of those listed.
Of these the 3 at the 111 marker two have the surname of interest, these two also show under the other markers and of the surnames listed there is every permutation you can think of. In other words it is not very useful.
Next with each match you get the likely generational distance before there is a MRCA which in the two quoted above is c1750 and c1700, the remainder go back centuries into the black hole of no records.
The other scrap of info that I got was my rough Haplogroup which goes back thousands of years, hence of zero genealogical interest.
My use was to confirm my ancestral surname which is different from the one on my birth certificate, the two yDNA matches quoted have that surname that is common among my atDNA matches.
There you are, my personal yDNA experiences.
Exhausting atDNA matches is IMO a better route, spread DNA data around as many sites as you can, this will max out the number of DNA matches that you have plus sites like Gedmatch and My Heritage have useful DNA analytical tools that Ancestry only has in very basic simple form.
Having kin take a DNA can also help to open doors and break down brick wall so do encourage them.
Ancestry seems to be having a promo at present, £59+p&p.
-
ftDNA do a few options, the more thorough and detailed the higher the cost.
The 111 would be my suggestion as a starter, if the results are then OK you can then pay the upgrade fee for the Big 700 (no additional test is required) which will unlock all the additional available data.
Do set low expectations, the lack of any significant quantity of yDNA testers limits the usefulness of a yDNA test.
With a 111 yDNA test you get the closest matches listed under their markers 111, 67, 37, 25 & 12.
For me there are 3, 15, 4, 7 & 741 yDNA matches listed against each of those listed.
Of these the 3 at the 111 marker two have the surname of interest, these two also show under the other markers and of the surnames listed there is every permutation you can think of. In other words it is not very useful.
Next with each match you get the likely generational distance before there is a MRCA which in the two quoted above is c1750 and c1700, the remainder go back centuries into the black hole of no records.
The other scrap of info that I got was my rough Haplogroup which goes back thousands of years, hence of zero genealogical interest.
My use was to confirm my ancestral surname which is different from the one on my birth certificate, the two yDNA matches quoted have that surname that is common among my atDNA matches.
There you are, my personal yDNA experiences.
Exhausting atDNA matches is IMO a better route, spread DNA data around as many sites as you can, this will max out the number of DNA matches that you have plus sites like Gedmatch and My Heritage have useful DNA analytical tools that Ancestry only has in very basic simple form.
Having kin take a DNA can also help to open doors and break down brick wall so do encourage them.
Ancestry seems to be having a promo at present, £59+p&p.
Hello
Thank you for your reply.
I was expecting zero, or one, or a few matches at best, from this type of test.
I have a documented line back to an ancestor, reputedly born Yorkshire, with Death Certificate and Burial records, giving a Birth latter part of the 18th century.
I would be looking for another Male line who branches off from his Father or before.
I have spent 30 years messing about with researching possibles (although I have some possibles) getting, Certificates, Wills, Property Registrations, Muster Rolls, Deeds, surviving School records and other documents etc.
I suppose a same surname result, with a high possibility is a pretty strong possible.
Thank you Mark
Edited
-
Hello
Thank you for your reply.
I was expecting zero, or one, or a few matches at best, from this type of test.
I have a documented line back to an ancestor, reputedly born Yorkshire, with Death Certificate and Burial records, giving a Birth latter part of the 18th century.
I would be looking for another Male line who branches off from his Father or before.
I have spent 30 years messing about with researching possibles (although I have some possibles) getting, Certificates, Wills, Property Registrations, Muster Rolls, Deeds, surviving School records and other documents etc.
I suppose a same surname result, with a high possibility is a pretty strong possible.
Thank you Mark
Edited
Alas getting a result with a yDNA test can be fortuitous, I was lucky, many are not hence my “set low expectations” advice.
You are more likely to find relations via an atDNA test and uploads as per what has been explained.
My own GGG GF was born in 1775 and if I found a 4C then we would share about 35cM but the range could be 0 to 139cM. The Zero is correct, at this level it is very possible that you are biologically related to a 4C and yet you share none of your mutual GGG GF’s DNA with your 4C.
Looking slightly further back may yield results, my Wife’s DNA and my own has given us 5C DNA Cousins at 20-40cM shared so it does work. It helps to populate the children of the MRCA and they in turn can yield results even when nobody has taken a DNA test in that line.
-
Thank you
I realise that the chances of getting one YDNA match for the purpose I require it for, is Zero to pretty slim.
My Niece got one of those standard DNA matches and discovered the other person was related to my late Great Uncle. She still lives in the same town, where he did.
I was able to tell her about his life as a Locomotive Driver.
Mark