Missing page for reformed christenings in Császár
This post was moved so it could receive an answer from the Historical Records Team
@Róbert Ráth said:
There seems to be a page missing from the christenings in Császár, Komárom:
62-63: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939K-RS34-YX
64-65: ?
66-67: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939K-RS34-MX
You can even flip through the adjacent pages and notice that year 1762 skips straight to 1764 without an 1763, even if the days and months seemingly match up.
Is this an accident/oversight or is that page truly missing?
Answers
-
Hello @shecorwe and @Róbert Ráth
Please look at the dates on the entries on page 63.
The first eighteen records on this page have dates which run from 13 March to 23 August, presumably for the year 1762.
But the last four records (including the one marked "Eodem") following the record dated 23 August are dated 21 April, 7 May, and 10 May. These records are out of chronological order with the rest of the records on page 63.
Also look very closely between the records dated 23 August and 21 April on page 63 and you will see a faint line between these two records as if something was cut out from or inserted at the bottom of page 63 after the record dated August 23.
As you noted the pages jump from page 63 to page 66, so missing pages 64 and 65 could have been accidentally missed in the microfilming process or could be truly missing.
I think these two missing pages represent the remaining records for the year 1762 and the start of the records for the year 1763
Also note: The scribe totals the number of baptisms for each year at the end of that year as follows:
1760: 49
1761: 51
1762: 56 [but this could actually be the total for 1763 given the missing pages).
1763: not found
1764: 41
1765: 36.
1766: 50.
1767: 49
1768: 44
1769: 46Given the large number of baptisms in any given year during this decade, it is highly unlikely that no children were baptized in 1763.
1 -
I find the likelyhood of an oversight to be greater, since it's only a single page spread that is missing rather than an actual physical page. Pages 64 and 65 should be physically present on the backsides of pages 63 and 66 respectively.
1 -
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
0 -
@Róbert Ráth It does look like an accidental skipping of the page during filming. It's unfortunate because re-filming is not an option for just two pages.
1 -
Is there any way those two pages can be accessed? The birth record of one of my ancestors (see here) is very likely located on one of those two pages.
0 -
Great news!
I contacted the Reformed Church of Császár and they were able to send a photo of the missing page spread! I uploaded it here:
https://www.familysearch.org/hu/memories/memory/241201921
My ancestor is indeed on one of them so I was able to identify her parents.
3 -
@Róbert Ráth That's amazing, and they did it so fast! I'm glad you found what you were looking for.
0
