GSU film without FHL number ILLed from LVA which assigns its own film number

By Anonymous on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 18:35

Forums

I borrowed some microfilms from Library of Virginia through InterLibrary Loan to my local library. I found a marriage bond for Reins-Ingram, dated 27 May 1820 in the second item on the film with a title card that said, "Marriage Bonds 1817 – 1820". Library of Virginia holds this microfilm in a collection it calls "Norfolk County Microfilms" under a subheading called "Marriage Records and Vital Statistics". 

The film is numbered "Reel 75" on the website but the box also states "Film #01000". 

Ok, so, I know I need to cite the original record, the fact that the original records are now at Library of Virginia rather than in Norfolk County courthouse (which no longer exists), and that I viewed the record on microfilm which is a GSU film but is numbered by LVA. 

My stab at this is:

Norfolk County (Virginia) Circuit Court, Marriage Bonds 1817 – 1820, p.133, Reins–Ingram, 27 May 1820; Library of Virginia, Richmond, Norfolk County Microfilm, Reel 75, item 2; Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah at Norfolk County Court, Portsmouth, 1950.  

That last section seems bulky and I know GSU is defunct, but how do I give them credit?

I looked up this record set at FHL and see that this particular filming of these records is FHL 32,906, item 2. Could I substitute that for everything past the second semi-colon? Does the fact that this bond book has been filmed on two different occasions and is listed with two different FHL numbers mean I should distinguish which film I used? (The one I used is older by twenty-five years and was done before the records were moved to the state archive.) Also, do I need to mention in any way the fact that I was not physically in Richmond while using the film but at my local library?

Thanks in advance! (With more thanks to come, I'm sure.)

Submitted byEEon Sun, 06/05/2016 - 13:38

Teresa, you do turn up interesting quirks.

Thought Process 1: The original records are held by the Library of Virginia, right?

Thought Process 2: GSU filmed the records and gave one copy to LV and one copy to FHL, right?

Thought Process 3: Each library assigns its own call number to the copy it is holding, right?

Thought Process 4: You are using the LV copy, right?

Thought Process 5: So, how dow this fit into the "Identifying Library Call Number" discussion at EE6.35?

That discussion at 6.35 presents the case of records at the Delaware Hall of Records, filmed by GSU and deposited at both the Family History Library and the Hall of Records. There, EE states:

"If we use the FHL copy, it is appropriate to cite FHL's film number, because FHL represents the producer of the film. If we use the copy at the Delaware Hall of Records (illustrated below), it is appropriate to cite that agency's identification number because that agency owns the original records."

Following the Cite What We Use Principle, your citation need only identify the record and the Library of Virginia film. Past that point, we get into other quirks:

  • If you want to add a note that the filming was done by GSU in 1950, there's certainly no harm in doing so. An editor would likely excise the addition; but in your research notes, it could  be helpful to you to know the origin of the film and the fact that another copy exists elsewhere.
  • Given that this particular bond register has been filmed twice, it could indeed be helpful—from the standpoint of analysis if questions arise—to know which filming you have used. Typically, a second filming will be done because legibility was poor in the first.
  • Given that we can glean other data from the FHL catalog, should we substitute the FHL catalog data for that of LV's data? No. The Cite What We Use Principle kicks in again here. If we cite something else we haven't used, on the premise that it seems to be same, then we may inadvertently, unintentionally, merge different-though-similar items and end up creating a problem for ourselves and others who use our work.
  • That said, there is no reason why—in our working notes—we could not add a note that this seems to be the same filmed material as FHL film 32,906, item 2.

 

 

Thanks so much for the swift response!

And for illustrating for me that it's perfectly fine if the citations I keep in my notes occasionally contain more information than what I'd include in a report. That's a new way of thinking for me and one that will serve me well as I make note of the peculiaraties and particulars of my sources for my own future reference and as I craft concise and correct citations for client reports or publication.

Revamped citations below, please critique as needed-

Source List:

Virginia. Norfolk County. Marriage Bonds 1817 – 1820. Microfilm. Reel 75, item 2. Library of Virginia,        Richmond.

Footnote:

1.  Norfolk County (Virginia) Circuit Court, Marriage Bonds 1817 – 1820, p.133, Reins–Ingram, 27 May 1820; image, Norfolk County Microfilm, Reel 75, item 2, Library of Virginia, Richmond.  

And in my research notes citation list:

Norfolk County (Virginia) Circuit Court, Marriage Bonds 1817 – 1820, p.133, Reins–Ingram, 27 May 1820; Library of Virginia, Richmond, Norfolk County Microfilm, Reel 75, item 2; Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah at Norfolk County Court, Portsmouth, 1950; FHL microfilm 32,906, item 2; Refilmed in 1975 as FHL microfilm 1,941,613, item1.

Thanks again,

Teresa