Typed certificate

[Davran]

I've just received a birth cert (unfortunately not the girl I wanted :( ), which is not the usual photocopy of the handwritten entry, but has been typed (or computered!) onto a form. Why would this be? Is it because the original is too fragile to photocopy or would there be another reason? I ordered a batch of certs, most of which came the same day, but had to wait for this one until today. The printed slip enclosed (the one giving details of what you have asked for) had various numbers scribbled on it and TEAM 2 stamped on it.

[Pam Downes]

Contact them and ask 'em. They're the ones who know why they did what they did.
(Might be cheaper to email than phone though. :) )
Pam

[Mythology]

Assuming that this is from the GRO, not a local office, and we are talking about something historic rather than recent...

"Is it because the original is too fragile to photocopy or would there be another reason?"

Another reason.

It is film copies, not paper, of the "originals" (which, of course, are not originals anyway, they are the copies made out at the local office and passed on to them) that they use, so fragility doesn't come into the equation - they will supply a modern transcript rather than a print from the film if they consider that it's too faded to be acceptable, or if there are marginal notes which will not fit into the normal print area.
(There may also be other reasons, but that's the only two that I'm aware of.)

Ordered over the counter at the FRC, on the basis that it's one less finger in the transcription pie, I write "Photocopy please, irrespective of condition" on the form. That seems to work as long as it's not one with the "marginal notes" problem, but I don't think there's any means of doing this when ordering online.

[Karen Newman]

I had received a typed birth cert sent by the GRO some time ago and the mother's maiden name was not as expected - I sent an SAE to the local register office (in Devon) and they looked up the original for me.

[Peter Goodey]

Where did the certificates come from and what dates did they relate to?

Anything we say will be speculation anyway. It's only the issuing office can answer the question.

I have here a typed death cert from 1956 issued by GRO (nb typed not 'computered').

I'm not sufficiently interested to enquire but it looks as if it was a typed copy that was originally sent from the local register office to GRO.

[Peter Goodey]

nb typed not 'computered'
Oh dear.

I'd better emphasise that I'm not complaining about the word 'computered' which was quite witty.

I was intending, but ran out of steam, to make the point that you don't have to be a professional forensic scientist to distinguish between a mechanical typewriter and laser or bubble jet technology.

Does anyone know what technology GRO use if they feel the need to produce a typed copy? Surely not an old mechanical typewriter?

[Mythology]

Does anyone know what technology GRO use if they feel the need to produce a typed copy? Surely not an old mechanical typewriter?I don't know. Certainly nothing that Messrs. Smith-Corona would have recognised, but, as it's "typed" on to a form and each cert is a one-off, I would think it's probably just as easy to stick the form into an electronic typewriter of some sort as to do it on a computer, though the latter may have an advantage in terms of keeping a record in case of customer query, I suppose.

Things may have changed since December 2004, which, I find, is the last time I failed to get a photo version - an 1841 death cert. As I'd done this as a "collect", not "post", I did at least get a look at (but was not allowed to have, because it's not certified) the photo version, so could verify their transcription. In that, the marginal note took up a good three inches depth. On the typed(?) version, it's only a fraction over two inches, but they've used an oversized form and left it with acres of white space, not a computer-created "adjust depth to fit" form.
(Cheap B&W scan: )

http://www.bgf.talbot-roots.org.uk/scancert.png

[Mythology]

"they've used an oversized form"

I mean a form with a larger than usual area for the information - it's still an A4 sheet.

[Peter Goodey]

As I'd done this as a "collect", not "post"Presumably not GRO?

[Mythology]

On the contrary!
GRO, a "collect" at the FRC - I'm in town often enough, so I usually do this rather than risk the increasingly unreliable post. Same with wills at Holborn - the last one that I foolishly had posted turned up about three weeks *after* I'd given up waiting, been in to First Avenue House, discovered that they'd sent it out a month previously, reordered as a "collect", and already collected my "collect" copy! |laugh1|

[Peter Goodey]

a "collect" at the FRC
Well I'm blowed. I've always assumed that it was just an alternative to the Royal Mail and nothing else. I had no idea that any supporting documentation made its way to the FRC.

We live and learn :cool:

Not that it will be useful knowledge for very much longer...:(

[Mythology]

I had no idea that any supporting documentation made its way to the FRC.I would guess that it's only because I'd specifically asked for the photo version on the application form (and possibly the inclusion of the word "please" helped!), so that they could show me why I wasn't getting what I'd asked for, not standard practice.

Not that it will be useful knowledge for very much longer... :( Indeed - personally, I don't mind Kew from a travelling point of view, it's slightly less time and it's cheaper as I don't get involved in Zone 1 from here, but I dread to think what we are going to be offered there.
The books are bound to go, I assume it will be "Dove or nothing", and, on the TNA side of things, I would not be surprised if it is decided that "You don't need the census films because we give you free access to Ancestry and it's all on there".
Oh, right - like all the enumerator's summaries that they can't be bothered to include, so we don't know what's missing when books have disintegrated. :(

[Davran]

To answer Peter's question: the birth was in 1858, Bilston and the cert came direct from the GRO by post. Regarding the 'typing' there is no indentation on the page, so I would surmise that there is a standard form on the computer that they use, which will slot into the correct boxes when printed.

If, as suggested, the image is very feint, then maybe that could be the reason why I can't find 'my' girl's birth in that area, though she should have been born in 1859, so that may not apply. As she doesn't belong to me, I'm not sufficiently interested to make further enquiries at the GRO as to why it was not a photocopy.

Anyway, back to the drawing board and another trawl through the indexes (or shouldn't that be indices??). Thanks for your interest one and all.

[Peter Goodey]

The books are bound to go, I assume it will be "Dove or nothing", and, on the TNA side of things, I would not be surprised if it is decided that "You don't need the census films because we give you free access to Ancestry and it's all on there".All I know is this -

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/January_2007_meeting_held_at_the_FRC.pdf

Q: Which microfilms will no longer be available on open access at Kew?
A: This will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The census microfilms/fiche will definitely be available.

Q: What is the future of the GRO service at FRC?
A: GRO has announced this week that it will be withdrawing from the FRC at the same time as TNA ie by 31 March 2008. The index books which have not been digitised by then will be housed at Kew as an interim measure, but they will not be on open access and will only be made available if researchers cannot find the information they require using the online and microfiche versions. The new index when finished will be more accurate and more complete so the books will be redundant. It will be possible to order certificates online at Kew but there will be no collection service.

I'm not very keen on either of those answers :(

[Peter Goodey]

indexes (or shouldn't that be indices?).
Indexes is acceptable and, so far as I'm concerned, both correct and preferred.

Indices just seems pretentious and, if you really have to use it, best reserved for strictly scientific or mathematical usage.

[waspexile]

I've just received a birth cert (unfortunately not the girl I wanted :( ), which is not the usual photocopy of the handwritten entry, but has been typed (or computered!) onto a form. Why would this be? Is it because the original is too fragile to photocopy or would there be another reason? I ordered a batch of certs, most of which came the same day, but had to wait for this one until today. The printed slip enclosed (the one giving details of what you have asked for) had various numbers scribbled on it and TEAM 2 stamped on it.

I had the same thing last year and under very similar circumstances to the one with the picture attached.
There had been a later correction because the person reporting the death got the fathers name and occupation wrong. This was all noted in a margin note and i too got a TEAM 2 stamp. it also took a few days longer to arrive than normal.
I just presumed that because of the margin note it wouldnt fit onto the normal style sheet so they did a "special"

[Mythology]

All I know is this -Thanks. :)
That's more than I knew - I confess that I am so resigned to the fact that they will do whatever they've already made their minds up to do, that the whole thing will be one almighty cock-up, and that we will get a worse service, that I hadn't even *looked* for any news of the details.

Q: Will the service at Kew be as user-friendly as the FRC?
A: That is our intention.

followed by the GRO info which includes...
It will be possible to order certificates online at Kew but there will be no collection service.

Oh, right - that's really user-friendly, isn't it? If I want to order them online and keep my fingers crossed that Postman Pat at Willesden sorting office doesn't heave them into the Grand Union Canal, I don't need to use Kew for that in the first place, do I?

Does Alastair Campbell (?spelling?) have a second job at TNA?
On the one hand they basically say they can't do anything about the lousy public transport (and make a reference to publicising the "various" buses, which is complete rubbish, there's only one, the R68 from Richmond) then later they say that they probably won't increase car parking space because "it is government policy to discourage the use of private cars".
Downing Street couldn't have done better - but perhaps there's a supplement on its way, telling us about the new changing rooms that they will build for the benefit of those who adopt their preferred method of travel - swim! :rolleyes: