69 or 49

[Gadget]

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. 

[arthurk]

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.)

[jane k]

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

[Gadget]

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

[arthurk]

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

[Gadget]

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:

[TGM61]

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.

[Gadget]

I saw that baptism and thought it a possible. 

Parents - George and Mary

[jane k]

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!