Jesse Richardson [#1900], s/o Oliver Richardson and Lydia Wyman, b. Woburn 1 Feb. 1729-30 [sic, see comment], d. Woburn 5 Nov 1813, aged 83 y. 9 m. [sic, see comment], m. 29 Dec 1756 Jemima Brooks.
[Note: the published Woburn records uses an unfortunate method for representing dates, leaving us unaware of the original record, and forced to assume that the compiler changed it per his impassioned comment on p. 1:7. Be that as it may, the assumed interpretation would be 1 Feb 1728/29, not the interpretation Vinton gives here. Further, Vinton appears to calculate the age at death based on his interpretation so it does not represent an independent fact, but is built on the same assumption. However, we must note that Vinton was probably reading the original record, as the published records came much later, and it is possible Vinton interpreted things right, and the compilers wrong. The compilers, based on what they say in the introduction, would have meant the birth to be 1 Feb 1728/29, and the age at death they report, 85 y, could very well be their own addition, not part of the original record, and hence simply another manifestation of their interpretation. (I am led to believe the age at death was the compilers' work by the consideration that it would be an almost unforgiveable breach of integrity if Vinton saw the age at death of 85 in the records, but reported 83 y. 9 m. without at least acknowledging the discrepancy.) There does not seem to be an epitaph reported for Jesse to swing the balance one way or the other. Unfortunately, indexing of film 859998: "Births, intentions, marriages, deaths, 1641-1843, 1768-1849 (Woburn, Massachusetts)", author: Woburn (Massachusetts). Town Clerk, on the familysearch.org website yields somewhat ambiguous results: birth 1 Feb 1729 (which favors Vinton, the practice of the times would have been to write this for 1729/30), d. 5 Nov 1813 age 85 (which favors the published records, since even the younger "in his 85th year" would suggest a birth no later than 5 Nov 1729, i.e., before the double-dated period 1729/30 even started). So it appears that we are left with dueling assumptions, and in need of seeing the original record. For now, the published record has been followed.]
