Person talk:Samuel Perry (18)

Dates, OS or NS [1 October 2018]

Since Savage usually expresses dates as NS but without the 10,11 day correction I assumed the birth date was 1640/1, but a year discrepancy seems odd. More likely birth and christening were both 1641/2 recorded differently by different writers.--Scot 17:02, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Interesting. After 15 years of comparing Savage to published VR's, I would have said he uses the same O.S. dates but rounds up when it's a single year; i.e. 29 January 1640 becomes 29 January 1641 to him (unless there's a date conflict with a marriage and/or gestation period). Not any kind of scientific survey, just my impression.-- Jaques1724 17:31, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Exactly, but in this case I think he must have copied as someone else wrote it not knowing if it was rounded up or not. The citation reads "1 March 1640/1 [sic]," but his text actually reads "1 Mar. 1641, bapt. 6 Mar. 1642". For me, double dating is less ambiguous, appending NS implies the date correction has been made. btw, these are not my Perry's but I sort of inherited them when someone erroneously attached the to my "Sandwich Perry's.--Scot 18:57, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

In this particular case, the "sic" seems to Anderson's alone. I prefer the way Savage handled it in the sketch of John Perry, "and Samuel, 1 Mar. 1641, bapt. 6 Mar. 1642, unless error of a yr. either in town or ch. interve." - much less cryptic. By the way, the issue of John Perry's wife, Samuel's mother is still out there. Anderson, citing Walne [Register, 132:22] is pretty convincing that it isn't Ann Newman. - Jaques1724 21:22, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

I don't believe there is an issue with the dates. If you look at the Roxbury Land and Church Records, p. 114, the record of baptisms starts Dec 1641 and Samuel Perry's baptism is the second listed. There may have been no opportunity to be baptized before that. --Jrich 03:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)