FHL Microfilm copy of Preservation Microfilm

By Anonymous on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 00:56

Forums

Up to now the online images of FHL microfilm I've used have been GSU (FHL) films of original records.

I've now run across an FHL microfilm that appears to be a copy of a preservation microfilm made by a state agency.  The microfilm header has the FHL film number but does not have the usual GSU filming information, but rather has information from the state agency.  There's no clear mention by FamilySearch that the FHL microfilm is a copy of another microfilm, however.

Is it appropriate to add the agency microfilm to the citation as:

Shelby County Clerk, marriage records, vol. B-3 (Apr. 1940 – Dec. 1940), p. 491, Harry Spencer Shupe and Marie Lynn Frayle, m. 24 Dec. 1940, Shelby Co.; consulted as "Tennessee, County Marriages, 1790-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/search/collection/1619127 : viewed 18 Aug. 2015); imaged from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 1,784,677; apparent copy of Tennesse State Library and Archives (TSLA), Shelby County Records, microfilm roll no. 426.  (The TSLA microfilm identifies the records as "Marriage Records", while the TSLA catalog identifies them as "Marriage Bonds".)

Or is it better to keep the supposition in a note to the citation:

Shelby County Clerk, marriage records, vol. B-3 (Apr. 1940 – Dec. 1940), p. 491, Harry Spencer Shupe and Marie Lynn Frayle, m. 24 Dec. 1940, Shelby Co.; consulted as "Tennessee, County Marriages, 1790-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/search/collection/1619127 : viewed 18 Aug. 2015); imaged from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 1,784,677.  (The FHL microfilm is apparently a copy of Tennesse State Library and Archives (TSLA), Shelby County Records, microfilm roll no. 426.  The records are identified on the microfilm as "Marriage Records", while the TSLA catalog identifies them as "Marriage Bonds.)

Thanks for your help!

Brian

Submitted byEEon Fri, 08/21/2015 - 12:55

Brian, you've made a great stab at a very complicated set of circumstances to sort through. EE's citation would be quite close to yours:

Shelby County, Tennessee, Circuit Court Clerk, "Marriage Records, vol. B-3 (Apr. 1940 – Dec. 1940)," p. 491, Harry Spencer Shupe and Marie Lynn Frayle, m. 24 Dec. 1940; consulted as "Tennessee, County Marriages, 1790-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/search/collection/1619127 : viewed 18 Aug. 2015); imaged from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 1,784,677; the microfilm identifies itself as Tennessee State Library and Archives (TSLA) microfilm series 079TE, roll 39. The volume's cover identifies the material as "Marriage Records," while the TSLA catalog identifies them, more precisely, as "Marriage Bonds."

I flagged the tweaking in red—essentially it's this:

  • We need to identify the state in first full reference note.
  • We need to identify which clerk's office created the record in that county.
  • If we use the exact title of the manuscript volume or filmer's target, then we need to use quotation marks.
  • It's not necessary to repeat the location of the marriage after the marriage date, unless it occurred somewhere other than the jurisdiction we're citing;
  • You've cited the Tennessee roll number, but not the series. TSLA, of course, has many film labeled "roll 39," each relating to a different series. The series number is identified at the start of the film.
  • American punctuation rules call for putting commas and periods inside quotation marks, rather than outside.

Submitted byBrian Gon Fri, 08/21/2015 - 15:55

I continue to be pleasantly surprised at how the clarity of a citation can be dramatically improved by a simple phrase - in this case the precise "identifies itself" vs. the imprecise "apparently".  Yours was an unexpectedly simple, elegant answer to my question!

I realize that the real source of my difficulties with this citation was that I was failing to cite *exactly* what I've used.  I need to make myself step back and describe a source to someone else, then work on the details of the citation for that source, not vice-versa!

Thank you so much,

Brian

 

I just encountered an even more confusing situation.

FHL microfilm 1011823 (digital folder 4008663) seems to combine portions of two different microfilm reels (Reel 30 and 31) made by the Philadelphia Records Depatrment of the death register from the Philadelphia Department of Health.

As far as I can tell, FHL combined portions of the original films so that their microfilm would cover only Jan - Jan in single year (the original films do not).  FHL didn't break up their film with item numbers, so the original reel changes just happen within the FHL film.  For example:

Image 3 :  Reel 30 - Starting at 1895 vol. 1 (January 1895, p. 1)

Image 329 : Reel 30 - Ending 1894 vol. 2 (July 1894, p. 1) through 1895, vol. 1 (June 1895, p. 323)

Image 338 : Reel 31 - Starting at 1895 vol. 1 (June 1895, p. 323)

Image 368 : (Probably Reel 31) - Ending 1895 vol. 1 (p. 323 to end)

Image 369 : Reel 31 - Starting at 1895 vol. 2 (July 1895, p. 1)

Image 688 : (Probably Reel 31) - Ending 1895 vol. 2 (p. 311)

I suspect that the images on FamilySearch are Original Film --> Splice --> Film of spliced film -->Digitize.

In any case, I'll identify the section that I'm using since the FHL film has several different identifiers.

I thought I'd share this interesting twist that others might encounter...

Brian    

 

 

 

Brian, thanks for sharing. You've provided another example of why it is important for us to cite just what we've used, and only what we used—and to be clear, when we cite the source-of-our-source, that we use their exact language, ideally with quotation marks around their ID. If and when we start trying to silently "fix" a supplier's inadequate or puzzling citation, by doing catalog searches of our own, we can be easily misled by situations such as the one you broach here.