Samuel Allcock 1753

[Mick Loney]

The film has 1415 images in total.
Sticking the DGS number into their film viewer, the result is that the film is broken up into the different items
https://www.familysearch.org/records/im ... rs=8068205

Hucknall Torkard has 79 images for overseers records
But in them, starting image 48, are some parish register transcripts. I don't know by whom, or when, or why
https://www.familysearch.org/records/im ... eView=true

They also have another 100 plus images of poor rates for Hucknall, I haven't looked through them. See the list from my first link.

I wasn’t aware of that method of viewing films, useful tip, thanks

[AdrianBruce]

... I wasn’t aware of that method of viewing films, useful tip, thanks

Be very wary of that new viewer. FamilySearch have been working on it for years (literally) and every time I think they've got it right, I find an example of a "film" where it's as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

The classic way it fails is when there are multiple places on one film, which often happens with PRs in the UK. In that case, there is a good chance that stuff ends up labelled with the wrong placename and can't be navigated to. Whether this is a coding issue or a cataloging issue or a coding issue that also needs a cataloguing fix, I don't know.

Sometimes it works, sometimes...

[paulr1949]

Hucknall Torkard has 79 images for overseers records
But in them, starting image 48, are some parish register transcripts. I don't know by whom, or when, or why
https://www.familysearch.org/records/im ... eView=true

Thanks jonwarrn for the shortcut - I didn't know that either. I have gone through the images from no. 48 and found baptisms and burials but no obvious marriages. I have found 12 Allcock baptisms and 2 burials, which I now have to work out if they are relevant
Still no sign of another Sameul born around 1750-1755 - although these images have a gap between c 1749 and c 1770

[jonwarrn]

http://www.hucknalltorkardhistory.co.uk/sources.htm

Web Resources
Transcript of baptisms and burials only, 1728-1851, by the wonderful Maureen Newton.

Be very wary of that new viewer.

Bit harsh. Nothing to be wary about, it's not perfect of course. I don't use it very often, but it has its uses. From there you can also download those images on FS that can otherwise only be viewed at home (with the download function disabled)

[Mick Loney]

From there you can also download those images on FS that can otherwise only be viewed at home (with the download function disabled)

Ever thought of taking a screenshot when download disabled. Works every time

[jonwarrn]

But downloading the image is much better than taking a screenshot.
Or multiple screenshots, which you will probably have to do if it's a will, or something like that.

[Mick Loney]

Methinks you doth protest too much. I have had no problems with quality with screenshots compared with downloads.
I was merely pointing out that where downloads have been disabled, a screenshot is a viable alternative option, especially if one enlarges the image to full screen.

[AdrianBruce]

...

Be very wary of that new viewer.

Bit harsh. Nothing to be wary about, it's not perfect of course. I don't use it very often, but it has its uses. ...

If it's now handling multiple places on one "film" correctly then - good.

However, it appears that one thing still to be wary of is this. If I enquire on "Haslington, Cheshire, England", I see one line of results. If I choose "Haslington, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom", I see 3 lines of results - including a repeat of the one line from the first query.

"Wrenbury, Cheshire, England" gives 4 lines. "Wrenbury, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom" gives 8 - only one of which duplicates the 1st set of 4.

I thought it had something to do with the 1801 division between the UK and what came before. However, the "Haslington, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom" includes a line for 1647-1651, so I'm puzzled...