LDS 'Photoduplication' service

[Ken_R]

To save anyone getting all excited and then disappointed when they get to the bottom of this thread, please note that the LDS photoduplication service was discontinued in December 2014. (post #29 refers)


Although I haven't tried it yet, just recently I've been looking at the LDS 'Photoduplication' service.

https://
familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Photoduplication_Services

where you can request up to 8 copies per application at a cost of $2 US per page.

The procedure seems quite onerous until you understand it. First you download the form,

https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/images/5/5f/Request_for_Photocopies.pdf

and complete it before posting or faxing it to the LDS.

The tip here is to 'save' the form whereby it then becomes 'editable'. Select the 'Edit' option (Top right on my 'puter). You still need to Print page 1 as it requires a signature. - Blimey, when was the last time I made an online purchase requiring a signature - these people are living in a past Century.:yawn:

However, having signed/scanned Page 1, until your credit card details change, it remains the same.

The confusing bit when completing the form, on page 2, is, "For copies from an International Genealogical Index source, use the form Request for Photocopies—International Genealogical Index and Sources (31831)."

So, Googling LDS form 31831 brings one back to the same form. It's the correct form but just is not numbered as such - my understanding.

We are now at the stage where Page 1 has been saved, completed, printed, singed, and signed. And scanned. Onto Page 2, in Edit mode. Complete the required fields as exampled. Many aren't sufficiently large as to encompass all of the information. 8 point text would seem the best.

Then we need to Fax the information. I'd need to get under the desk and re-connect some leads, but I know that I still have an old 'dial-up' modem that sends Faxes via Microsoft Office. I just need to ensure that Page 2 is orientated correctly before pressing the 'send' icon.

For anything post 1812, Marriages should/will show witnesses. Births should/will shows Abode and Fathers occupation. Death should/will show Age at Death and Abode. Anything post 1837 should/will show, Marriages, Father's names and occupation.

The only things that you are not going to get, in comparison with a GRO Certificate is, on Births, Mother's Maiden Name and, on Deaths, Informant details.

If something appears on Family Search, then this appears to be a significantly cheaper method of obtaining details. However, I'll stand to be corrected on some of the finer points.

[MythicalMarian]

For anything post 1812, Marriages should/will show witnesses.


Marriages from 1754 onwards should also show witnesses. :D

[Pam Downes]

would seem the best.
For anything post 1812, Marriages should/will show witnesses. Births should/will shows Abode and Fathers occupation. Death should/will show Age at Death and Abode. Anything post 1837 should/will show, Marriages, Father's names and occupation.

The only things that you are not going to get, in comparison with a GRO Certificate is, on Births, Mother's Maiden Name and, on Deaths, Informant details.

If something appears on Family Search, then this appears to be a significantly cheaper method of obtaining details. However, I'll stand to be corrected on some of the finer points.
Firstly, Ken, thank you very much for the detailed 'how to do it' instructions. Not being very computer literate, I'm sure I would have given up in disgust before I'd even got as far as signing my name! :biggrin:

I would agree that it's an extremely cheap way of obtaining documents (I would think far cheaper than applying to local Record Offices), but surely they're just the baptisms, marriage, and burial entries in the parish registers. So there's actually quite of lot of the details that you find on birth and death certificates missing. The marriage certificates will be exactly the same except that they will have original signatures on them. :smile5:
In the baptism registers, you will be minus: date of birth, address where birth took place, mother's maiden name, and who was the informant of the birth.
Burial registers will omit place of death, usual residence of deceased, occupation (with a married woman 'wife/widow of' plus hubby's occupation), cause of death and informant.

And before anyone starts yelling, yes, some baptism registers do give a date of birth and/or the mother's maiden name, but it is not the norm.
Ditto, the burial registers, where occasionally you get remarks made about the deceased, but the norm is date of burial, name, age at death, date of burial.

Pam

[Mutley]

I agree with Pam, after 1837 I would rather the details on a certificate.
Prior to 1837 I think I would rather try and buy the parish register for the church to see if other relatives were mentioned.

However, if you know for sure that it is your relative and it is pre 1837 then it sounds a good deal.
It also sounds good for marriages, a far cheaper option.

Do you know how long it takes to receive them?

[Peter Goodey]

these people are living in a past Century

I had to smile at that remark. :biggrin: There's many a true word...

[Ken_R]

Marriages from 1754 onwards should also show witnesses. :D

The most recent CD that I purchased, <1812 doesn’t show any witnesses. I think it rather depends on how busy the Church was. Perhaps if it was a country Church, or a Church that had adopted the Dade principals then possibly, but for a busy City Church, seemingly not.


Do you know how long it takes to receive them?

I think it said 6 to 8 weeks. If it’s a choice between £9.15 v £1.60, I can be very patient.


I had to smile at that remark. :biggrin: There's many a true word...

I can never resist the opportunity for a witty remark.:whistling:

[MythicalMarian]

Manchester Cathedral celebrated multiple marriages every day. You will find every entry with witnesses from 1754 to 1812. I doubt there were many busier city churches than that, apart from London, of course. The Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 provided forms which all had spaces for witnesses - as our B-G archives state here: http://www.british-genealogy.com/parish-registers/marriage-registers-1754-to-1837.html

I can only assume that your marriage CD, from whatever parish, predates 1754. :D

[Ken_R]

Update on the Family Search Photoduplication Service. They now accept requests by email, and are free of charge.

The main proviso being that each request should be for no more than 5 records, and that one awaits a response before submitting any further requests.

My latest (and only) request (to date) resulted in a response in 17 days.

Points to note.

It is not a 'research' facility. It is up to you to point the staff as to where they might find the image required.

Research the correct number of the film from which you want the image to be copied. If there are multiple entries they might be, for instance, in the case of marriages, Banns, Bishops Transcripts, or the original record.

Suggestion: Tabulate the request. The staff aren't interested in 'waffle'. I'd not be surprised if they got a number of 'roundtoit' requests. One's where they think, "I'll get round to it next....week+."

1. Film Number =
2. Record set =(Identifies the Church just in case there is a 'typo' in the 'Film Number' line. (As if anyone on here would do such.:rolleyes5:)
3. Date
4. Name and relationship. I'm trying to think of one of those funny Marriage name type combinations, but they escape me just at this moment.:idea:

How to identify the correct Film Number.

Whether there are multiple entries or not, or multiple Film Numbers, from the Opening Page (on Family Search), below where you see "Discover Your Family History", there are four headings. Under the words, "Your Family" appears "Catalog". Click on that which takes one to another page.

Click on "Film Numbers" - normally have to do this twice. Enter the Film Number which will take you to what I have termed the Record Set. i.e. Which then shows the Church and the period. (If one has now found that they are at, say, Banns, or Bishop's Transcripts, then perhaps now is the time to seek out other Film Numbers.)

Click on that, and it will show a list of Film Numbers and what is recorded on those films in respect of events and years.

Where I have identified discrepancies between the Film Number quoted, and the dates/records shown in this list, I have included in the email a reference to any possible error by indicating alternative/overlapping Film Numbers. After all, no system is perfect.

[Mitch in Notts]

Well I've sent my request for a copy of a 1857 marriage from familysearch film that is missing from Scotlandspeople. Hope I've done it right! And we may now find out if the OPR for that parish really did continue to 1866 when they were supposed to have been submitted to the Registrar General in 1855. Can't wait - should be interesting!

Thanks for putting up this link - very useful!

Mitch


We have gremlins - preview shows one 'Scotlandspeople' posting shows TWO!!! And no I haven't had a drink....

[Mitch in Notts]

.

And before anyone starts yelling, yes, some baptism registers do give a date of birth and/or the mother's maiden name, but it is not the norm.
Ditto, the burial registers, where occasionally you get remarks made about the deceased, but the norm is date of burial, name, age at death, date of burial.

Pam

Funny as I'm just going through Norfolk BTS and 1894 contains Fincham burials from 1885 onwards - in the burial date column the date of death is included for EVERY entry as well as the burial date! And I must say it is something I have NEVER seen so thoroughly before! Often with baptisms, yes but burials, no.

[Elma]

Ken R
This has been such a helpful thread thought I must say thank you Very much
ELMA

[Jan1954]

Ken R
This has been such a helpful thread thought I must say thank you Very much
ELMAIt has been that helpful, Elma, that I have made it into a "stickie". Thank you, Ken R.

[Ken_R]

It has been that helpful, Elma, that I have made it into a "stickie". Thank you, Ken R.

Jan. As a 'stickie' if you want to 'trim it down'. I'll not be offended if one of the Admin/Mods team choose to eliminate the 'chaff' and rewrite the topic back to 'bare bones'.

Assuming the position of someone coming afresh to the site, then perhaps such is what I would want to see. I'm not after the credit. Just wishing to assist others.

Ken.

[Elma]

It has been that helpful, Elma, that I have made it into a "stickie". Thank you, Ken R.

Maybe I am cheeky but sometimes I see posts that are very helpful and I find if I reply to that post, even to say thank you I will always be able to then find it quickly and easily under my Quick Links. Otherwise they disappear into the ether. I have usually forgotten the right words to use search?
ELMA

[Mitch in Notts]

Well got my image today. Excellent service - 28 days can't grumble at that - especially when it's free! So now have image from Proclamations of Banns from the 24th May 1857. Still to find the actual marriage which was supposed to be on the 5th June 1857!

[Ken_R]

Well got my image today. Excellent service - 28 days can't grumble at that

Similar to me. Got my current 'clutch' of images back in just under 28 days. I see that the 'rules' have now changed a little. They now request name/address but, if a return customer, no need to include each time. Just state such. They now ask for no more that one request (max 5 records) per month, as opposed to 'not making additional requests before a response to a current request(s)'.

And the records that came back led me to something like a 4 hour chase confirming siblings of a known relative, an early female death, a 2nd marriage, and a Grandson that, intriguingly, may indicate a 2nd marriage between the same families in differing generations.

Much to chase up.

[Mitch in Notts]

Yesterday I filled in a new photoduplication request on the new form https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9tdS7lqbTCW30kR as instructed by familysearch.
I haven't had a confirmation email and while I followed all the 'next' buttons I somehow feel it might not have gone through.
Has anyone else used the new form, and got an acknowledgment?

Thanks

Mitch

[Ken_R]

Mitch. - wrong form. You have requested copies of pages from books held in the library.

The last one I sent, a few weeks ago, the new form still not being available, went as an email with bullet points listing the known details.

Edit - my mistake. That is the new form. And yes, you should have received a confirmation.

[Mitch in Notts]

Thanks Ken,

will make some further enquiries

Mitch

[gasser]

Yesterday I filled in a new photoduplication request on the new form https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9tdS7lqbTCW30kR as instructed by familysearch.
I haven't had a confirmation email and while I followed all the 'next' buttons I somehow feel it might not have gone through.
Has anyone else used the new form, and got an acknowledgment?

Thanks

Mitch

I filled in the new form earlier today, with my 4 requests, and like you 'felt' as though it hadn't gone through but I did actually save the 'initial report' that appeared after I submitted my request. Is that some sort of confirmation? or do we get something more appropriate via email?

[Ken_R]

'initial report' that appeared after I submitted my request. Is that some sort of confirmation? or do we get something more appropriate via email?

Before, when I have sent an email request I have received an email with "CaseID........." followed by a 7 figure number to quote in the event of queries.

If you had something like that appear in the 'initial report' then, I would suggest, the request was received.

[gasser]

Before, when I have sent an email request I have received an email with "CaseID........." followed by a 7 figure number to quote in the event of queries.

If you had something like that appear in the 'initial report' then, I would suggest, the request was received.

Just checked the report I'd saved and unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest this. Guess I'll just have to wait 'til next working day, and see what arrives in my inbox........but thanks for your reply.

[Mitch in Notts]

Yes I got to the 'Initial Report' page & there it seemed to end. Considering I filled the form in Friday lunchtime I likewise have not yet received a confirmation email.

Mitch

[Mitch in Notts]

Just looking at this page:

https://familysearch.org/blog/en/policy-change-patrons-requesting-photocopies-family-history-library-salt-lake-city-utah/

The LDS state they do not send out confirmation emails, but will do in the near future - but that was in March!
I certainly had a confirmation to my request made at the end of April, BUT I did not use the official form & received my documents (twice!) within a month. Posters on the link are reporting waits of 10 weeks....

Still none the wiser!

[saddlers]

Can I ask whether this facility is still available? I can see that the links to the forms still work, but I can not locate this on the familysearch website as a service...or am I missing something?

[Ken_R]

Yes still working. The request form is at
https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9tdS7lqbTCW30kR
The form is deceptive in that it asks how many copies you require, when it actually means records.

[Wilkes_ml]

Have only just noticed this.....do you need exact dates to get copies of each individual record?

[saddlers]

Well I have just sent off my first batch and got e-mail confirmation with case ID etc. It took me a while to figure out what went where but I think I got there in the end once I had thoroughly read through this thread.

It does look for the exact date to be provided, but I had located these for each item I submitted.

[Pam Downes]

Whilst double-checking on the LDS site what I had to do to order copies I found this page which says that with effect
from 5 Dec 2014 the duplication service will be discontinued.
https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Photoduplication_Services

Pam

[christanel]

Well that didn't last very long did it? I'll bet they were inundated. Ah well back to the old way.

Thanks Pam :smile5:

Christina

[Mitch in Notts]

I have a request pending which I sent for a third time in a year, this time using the correct from ;). Hope they can find it as without the result I may be banging my head against a brickwall forever. (Realistically I don't believe the record exists and they made it up ;( )