Person talk:Seth Paddock (3)

Double-dating [21 May 2014]

The discussion about Smith's interpretation of the birthdate has been moved here.

jrich said: However, the surrounding records in the Yarmouth records, as shown or otherwise, offer no clue about the proper interpretation, it is not obvious that March should automatically be promoted to 1704/05 (e.g., the birth of Sarah Sturgis on the same page, dated "24th day of March 1703" is shown to be 1702/03 by the birth of her brother John 6 Nov 1704, ruling out the 1703/04 interpretation), and since the previous child died soon after birth, one-year spacing between siblings would not be unusual.

neal gardner said: It would be unusual for a record to state 1704 as the birth year meaning 1703/04 and not 1704/05.

jrich said: Maybe for January and February, but not for March, since March was partially in the new year, and partially in the old year, and often the whole month was included in the new year: hence the given example from the same page involving Sarah Sturgis, being a case where we can make a definitive determination of what was meant. So there, in March 1703 is shown to mean March 1702/03. Following the same pattern, our March 1704 would be March 1703/04. --Jrich 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)