Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

MIC/CWGC/SDGW


kevin

Recommended Posts

Pals

Right here's the question.

We have a Pte William Conyard who shows up on SDGW as:-

Pte William Conyard , 205341 Labour Corps, Formerly 29934 West Yorks 22nd Batt.

CWGC shows:-

Name: CONYARD

Initials: W

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Private

Regiment/Service: West Yorkshire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Own)

Unit Text: 22nd Bn.

Secondary Regiment: Labour Corps

Secondary Unit Text: transf. to (205341) 731st Coy.

Date of Death: 11/11/1917

Service No: 29934

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: I. P. 8.

Cemetery: LA BRIQUE MILITARY CEMETERY

But the MIC shows

Description Medal card of Conyard, William

Corps Regiment No Rank

Yorkshire Regiment 29934 Private

Labour Corps 205341 Private

Could the MIC be so incorrect as showing the Wrong Regiment, i can see the problems with numbers been wrong, i can accept that, but the incorrect Regiment.

Any answer/comments?

Regards Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin

Have you downloaded the MIC or are you going off the summary page?

If the latter, download it and see what's what.

That said, as far as I know, the Yorkshire Regiment didnt have a 22nd Battalion AND the 22nd Battalion of the West Yorks was a Labour Battalion which became part of the Labour Corps (source: Long Long Trail)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Kevin

Are the MIC details from the online NA catalogue or from the actual MIC itself?

Steve (stebie) has commented before that his interest in the Northamptonshires is blighted by at least 800 or so of the Northants men being catalogued online as belonging to the Northumberland Regiment.

I think that you will find that it is purely a transcription error.

Regards

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

This is just one of many i found to day, whilst doing a little cross checking of some info, MRUK passed my way, all Labour Corps/West Yorks, it's not just the one.Will need a loan from the bank, and am fed up paying my in direct taxes(off topic :) ). So will i just put it down to a large clerical error?

Regards Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel

Sorry i was typing whilst you replied, yes its just from the summary page, but as you say how can you get just the obvious wrong, clerics.

Regards and thanks for your thoughts.Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as you say how can you get just the obvious wrong,

Depends, Kevin.

It may be the transcription or the original card that's wrong (assuming it is wrong). If it was me, I'd download one or two to see what's what.

I can't recall the process for the digitisation or how the summary page was created. But you can place a good bet that the transcription process was contracted out to the lowest quote, paying the lowest wages to its staff who can hardly be expected to be particularly fussed about accuracy. In the circumstances, I am amazed there arent loads more errors.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Kevin,

Have I created a bit of a headache for you? :D I'm having the same problems with the WYR men who served with the DLI, and while the regimental numbers are given on SDGW, there's no correlation between CWGC and NA-MIC. I've had to 'scrap' the thirty or so I've already found because I can't make the connection. It's a real pity, but I don't want to go to any undue expense on the off-chance that I might find one 10th WYR man from a 100, though I do suspect that it is a typo, and I'm in agreement with others about the attention paid to accuracy--or lack of it--in the digital process. The agencies involved need to get their fingers out...especially the twelve monkeys and the solitary scanner in the NA and CWGC.

Kind Regards,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave/Kevin,

The MIC's can prove to be a pain at times as I have often found important info to be missing. This is particularly true of cards that are found on the edges of the microfiche, where numbers get chopped off. This error is then transcribed into the digital form and causes a terrible headache.

As for the SDCD and CWGC, it's not surprising there are errors with so much information being transcribed from printed format to digital. However, I have found the CWGC to be the most accurate. I do know that when the SDGW was first scanned (somewhere in India) there were a lot of software recognition errors that were corrected by well meaning keyboard operatives, who had no idea about the subject! These errors continue to raise there heads from time to time.

It's one of the curses of a digital age, and a very frustrating one.

Regards

Paul J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Thanks Paul,

I bow to your hands-on approach to research on this one, as I've not yet had the pleasure of visiting Kew. It is frustrating, and none more so when the error is glaringly obvious. This is why I try to check and cross-reference my own research with all the possible sources available, and I suppose local knowledge counts for a good bit too. What is more annoying, though, is the unwillingness of some to acknowledge the extent of their mistakes and problems, though I think I'm asking too much that all parties concerned liaise for the purposes of shared and common interests--money aside, that is. What better way, then, than aiming for higher standards and accuracy, and paying due respect to the men and women many of us are remembering. I know...it is a tall order, and I'm probably asking too much. :lol:

Cheers,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pals

Right here's the question.

We have a Pte William Conyard who shows up on SDGW as:-

Pte William Conyard , 205341 Labour Corps, Formerly 29934 West Yorks 22nd Batt.

CWGC shows:-

Name: CONYARD

Initials: W

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Private

Regiment/Service: West Yorkshire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Own)

Unit Text: 22nd Bn.

Secondary Regiment: Labour Corps

Secondary Unit Text: transf. to (205341) 731st Coy.

Date of Death: 11/11/1917

Service No: 29934

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: I. P. 8.

Cemetery: LA BRIQUE MILITARY CEMETERY

But the MIC shows

Description Medal card of Conyard, William

Corps Regiment No Rank

Yorkshire Regiment 29934 Private

Labour Corps 205341 Private

Could the MIC be so incorrect as showing the Wrong Regiment, i can see the problems with numbers been wrong, i can accept that, but the incorrect Regiment.

Any answer/comments?

Regards Kevin

Go for the medal rolls at Kew.

stevem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I'm probably asking too much. :lol:

No, I don't think you are Dave.

The difficulty both CWGC and the NA now find themselves in is that having digitised there's no practical cost-effective way for them to revalidate the millions of entries to check for errors. That said, it's my experience that both agencies are very willing to amend their records once evidence is put before them. It's the finding out and realising that there's an error that's the damn difficult bit!

BY way of example, it was only yesterday that I had an email from the Commission accepting that there was a scanning error relating to one of my Stockport chaps. Victor Brabenetz will now be properly commemorated (they had his name as Brabenety).

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

You are right the medal rolls is the correct coarse of action in all case's, but as i am not around the corner from the NA, so have to take in the resources at my finger tips, and as these have been payed for by me and our good selfs then released with out checking,and how many of use take material at face value? with out doing our own checks, even from a very sound source.

If some one is willing to photograph every medal roll(we will start at the West Yorks First :) Thats over a 100,000 men) i will under take to check them and inform the NA where there have gone wrong :) . And that will clear all my loose ends up and mruk all in one go :) .

Regards Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...