Microfilm and digital images of original records facilitate access for genealogists. Occasionally however, when images of records are made it is not always easy to ascertain which “front” goes with which “back” and even if the front and back of each piece of paper in a record file have been captured.
In some filming situations image numbers are part each image. This makes it easy for the user to make certain they’ve got all the images from a certain record set, but that does not mean that the front and back of each document have been filmed or that it’s crystal clear which front and back are paired up.
Fortunately digital images of records make it easier to pair up the fronts and backs of documents than it used to be. The image in this post contains the upper portions of two consecutive images obtained from the estate packet (number 18232) of Ephraim Puffer of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Probate of Puffer’s estate was started on 28 February 1757 when his widow was appointed administratrix.
The bottom image was created by taking the upper portion of the image after this 10 April 1770 document and flipping it horizontally. That made it relatively easy to see that the image following the 10 April 1770 order was the back of that order and not a separate document.
The image contains a few examples of where they “match up.” There is one significant place where they don’t (indicated by the purple arrow). Those small blobs probably resulted from the document being folded and some of the ink on the back bleeding between the creation of the document and the microfilming of it.
Before one complains too much about the “back” of each document not being digitized, it is important to remember that these records were created from microfilm. The reverse sides of many documents are completely blank and were not microfilmed for that reason. Microfilming was done when the cost of image creation was more expensive than it is today.
But it’s never a bad thing to know which front goes with which back. Your analysis may depend upon it.
No responses yet