I want to view Film #6097477. It does not have a DGS# (not sure what this is) but also has a film icon by the side. It is for 1891 Lady Wood Sub-District of Birmingham 1871 census. Can anyone please give me a reason for this?
@Karen Owens Microfiche #6097477 is not in a digital format. It is possible that some family history centers have copies of the physical microfiche. Many of them are beginning to open again. You can search our family history center locator to find one near you. It would be a good idea to contact them to ask if they happen to have this specific microfiche. Here is a link to the family history center locator:
Other ways to search the 1891 Census for England and Wales:
From our Record Collections, you can search the index. You can view the census images only at a family history center:
The best website for doing research in England and Wales is findmypast.com. It is a subscription website, but I believe they offer free trial subscriptions. You might find that they have enough helpful information to make it worth a subscription:
Are you a member of the Church?
I was able to view the film, the film icon means you can view the record.
I suggest perhaps you should remove cookies from the website or try another browser?
hope the suggestion helps, all the best in your research.
6097477 is actually a microfiche, not a film, so that is why it isn't viewable online. The film icon does make it confusing. But the same census item should be available on a number of other websites, such as Ancestry.com
Sorry to not agree, I can see the images on my computer and it has a DSG and camera icon too
Either Karen is not a member of the LDS Church (as you questioned) or was logged in with a public account.
As expected, I can see no camera icon from my public account. As Norm suggests, Karen (if not a Church member) will need to visit Find My Past, Ancestry or another subscription-based websites to view these census records.
I confirm that I see the catalog record that this record is a FICHE (Microfiche) as advised by Norm Jones.
To my knowledge NO microfiches have yet been digitised . Previously a FamilySearch employee said that no microfiches would be digitised until ALL microfilms are digitised, and I am aware of some microfilms yet to be digitised.
If Chai sees a FICHE which has been digitised, could he/she confirm.
I believe both FindMyPast and Ancestry.com are offering members of public libraries who have a subscription with them free use of their websites from home, due to the pandemic. I believe that this expires on 30 June for Ancestry.
@Karen Owens , if you do not belong to a library or your library doesn't have access to either website, I am happy to look up some records for you and send you the images.
For the particular Film number in question ...
[ ie. the 1891 Lady Wood Sub-District of Birmingham ... ]
This is what appears is the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue" ...
Which is clearly referenced; as, a "Fiche", where the icon for 'Format' is a "Film Reel"
Plus ... NO "DGS" (ie. Digitisation) number ...
Hence, NOT available DIRECTLY 'On-line' in 'FamilySearch'.
IF, a User/Patron has a "FindMyPast" Account; and, that User/Patron has "Connected" that "Partner" Account with their 'FamilySearch' Account; THEN, they should be able to, access; and, view, the "Image" of the census, from 'FamilySearch'.
Whether or not, a User/Patron has a "FindMyPast" Account ...
IF, a User/Patron has NOT "Connected" that "Partner" Account with their 'FamilySearch' Account; THEN they will NOT be able to, access; and, view, the "Image" of the census, from 'FamilySearch'.
What you are referencing is the "1871, Census", NOT the "1891, Census" ...
Which appear to be "Films"; and, where, most (ie. all except ONE) are available 'On-Line'.
I think that the confusion has arisen because:
(1) the FHL Film number that the poster references is #6097477
.... [ which DOES NOT have a "DGS" Reference; as, the poster indicates ]
(2) the poster also (later) references TWO (x2) Census', they being the, 1891; and, then, 1871.
I hope this helps.
I see I was looking at the wrong number
sorry for the confusion