[Genealib] Digitization vs. Keeping old records

[Barbara Hill]

It's possible the pages were missing from the 
book rather than overlooked in filming - 
depending on whether the odd numbered pages were 
on the left or the right.  Two pages in a row, 59 
and 60, sounds suspiciously like both sides of a 
single sheet that had been removed.

Years ago, my mother had the naturalization 
records for Shasta County, Calif. 
microfilmed.  When I reviewed the film, I noticed 
two page numbers were not sequential - there were 
two pages missing even though the index listed 
names that were on them.  Yet you could see the 
gutter between the nonsequential pages.  It was 
utterly unlikely that the missing pages were 
overlooked in filming, because the missing sheet 
would have had to have been sticking straight up 
vertically (rendering it invisible) under the 
microfilm camera in order for the preceding page 
and following page to have been filmed as having 
been attached to each other.  I doubt if such a 
scenario is even possible.  Someone must have removed a page at some time.

Barbara Hill


At 09:22 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:

>   I ran across just this situation last week 
> with city records which had been 
> microfilmed.  According to the index on the 
> microfilm, what I needed was on p. 60.  I was 
> so excited to find these records and quickly 
> scrolled to p. 58 and then 61.  Pages 59 and 60 
> had not been filmed.  I checked every single 
> page on that reel to be sure it was not out of 
> place­even the 300 blank pages after the note 
> that said, “the next 300 pages are blank.”  What a let down.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.acomp.usf.edu/pipermail/genealib/attachments/20070206/adf578af/attachment.html