Another Mushat request - Archibald - 1851 Glasgow census

[jennyblain]

Here's another 'no image' entry from SP. Again, can anyone please help?

1851 MUSHET ARCHIBALD M 20 GLASGOW GLASGOW/LANARK 644/01 258/01 004 No Image

Might be transcribed as Mushat, Mushet, Mushot or Mushit...

Jenny

[nelmit]

Here's another 'no image' entry from SP. Again, can anyone please help?

1851 MUSHET ARCHIBALD M 20 GLASGOW GLASGOW/LANARK 644/01 258/01 004 No Image

Might be transcribed as Mushat, Mushet, Mushot or Mushit...

Jenny

Another variation to add to your list -
Name: Archibald Musket
Age: 14
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1837
Relationship: Son
Father's Name: Archibald
Mother's Name: Margaret
Gender: Male
Where born: Glasgow
Parish Number: 644/1
Civil Parish: Glasgow St John
County: Lanarkshire
Address: 55 Kerr St
Occupation: App Moulder

Household Members: Name Age
Catherine D Aiken 54
Archibald Musket 38
Archibald Musket 14
Charles C Musket 11 Mo
David Musket 17
George Musket 12
Margaret Musket 31
Sarah Musket 10

Regards,
Annette

[jennyblain]

Thanks Annette - yes, another variation (and there are more)! SP does show the Archibalds you list as 'Mushet' - so it's quite possible that your source will conversely have the Archibald Mushet I'm seeking (aged around 20) as 'Musket'

Jenny

[Jack]

Hi Annette and Jenny,
Ancestry appears to have made yet another of its infamous transcriptions...
...they have the surname of this Archibald MUSHET as WRIGHT....

The number below is from the 1851 GWSFHS census CD name index which has the name as MUSHET.
I wonder if the GROS no. of 644/01 258/01 004 has anything to do with the "No Image" on SP?
Andrew will most likely know the answer - he's well clued up on census nos.!

This taken from Ancestry, but with the name changed from Wright to Mushet.
He is lodging with a John Harvey, 60, and family (Ancestry has the age as 61).
--
1851 Census 644-1 (565) Ed 39 p 4 line 8 (Glasgow - St. John)
492 Gallowgate ......... [house schedule 13]
Archibald MUSHET, lodger, 20, Moulder (iron), b Glasgow, LKS
--
Jack

[AndrewP]

I wonder if the GROS no. of 644/01 258/01 004 has anything to do with the "No Image" on SP?

Hi Jack,

The high RD-number issue is pretty well resolved now, so the GROS number should have no bearing on the "No Image". Most of the 1851 "No Image" ones are down to them being written on blue paper and the ink colour not sufficiently contrasting to have made a decent image by the original imaging process. There is contract let to have these re-imaged, but no date has been given for these to be done and put online (see section 12.2 of http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/conte ... utes14.pdf ).

If you have seen some of these on the microfilms, they have come out like black on dark grey background and are very difficult to read. The current DIGROS images (as used on SP) are made from the microfilms, so until these are re-imaged there will remain significant numbers of "No Image" results on the 1851 census. These black-on-grey microfilms have probably given rise to more transcription errors on Ancestry than are normally there.

All the best,

AndrewP

[jennyblain]

Oh hehehe hehe You've made my day, Jack! Ancestry gives 'wright' as the surname...

This may, or may not be, the particular Archibald I'm looking for - son of a James Mushet, iron-moulder, in the 1841 census... but if so I'm impressed by the persistence of iron-working among this (maybe) family. They go from the blacksmiths and 'nailers' of the 18th c. to the foundry-workers, engineers and iron-moulders.. I'm tracing them through four generations and they seem to keep this up

Jenny

[jennyblain]

Most of the 1851 "No Image" ones are down to them being written on blue paper and the ink colour not sufficiently contrasting to have made a decent image by the original imaging process.

Thanks Andrew. It's useful to have updates on the 'blue paper' images. I just seem to have a good share of them - not only these lately mentioned!

Jenny

[Jack]

Thanks Andrew,

I was quite confident you'd know what was causing the "No Image" problem.

Ancestry are useful, but i just wish they'd taken time to check their transcriptions.
Methinks they put quantity before quality...

Cheers - Jack

[LesleyB]

Methinks they put quantity before quality...

Methinks that from what we have seen here on TS from Ancestry, you may just be right, Jack!

Best wishes
Lesley

[Jack]

Hi Lesley,
It can be difficult enough at times finding someone in a census with a correctly transcribed name.
But searching on Ancestry is an entirely different ball game.
As you know, they have some weird and wonderful words that are nothing like what is actually written!
Looks like very many of their transcriptions were "Friday afternoon jobs"...
I still laugh at your research last year into the Do & Ditto families!
Perhaps that alone suggests Ancestry weren't really trying to attain accuracy.
And alas, i don't think it bothers them in the least that they have so many errors.
For eg, this is my 1C1R in 1871...

Danto Wasnick, 11, born Glasgow (Ancestry transcription)
...is actually...
David Maxwell, 11, born Eastwood (the original page)

Jack