Found Family Heirlooms - Family History & Genealogy Message Board

J. Arthur GRAYDON Bible

cntycop — 2013-06-17 05:16:32Z

I have located a small personal sized Bible that belongs to J. Arthur GRAYDON. There is a sticker in the back of the Bible with that name on it. There is also an address of East Cleveland, Ohio. I would like to return the Bible to the GRAYDON family or Arthur's descendants. I am NOT related to the family and I do not live in the Cleveland area. The Bible is currently located in the western New York area. Please email me if you have information on the whereabouts of Arthur's family.

UK airport tries to find century-old lost teddy's family

robinwilson2001 — 2013-06-15 13:48:56Z

This article was posted on CNN ... Wouldn't it be great if together as a group we could located the family... please read the following:

UK airport tries to find century-old lost teddy's family
By Laura Smith-Spark and Carol Jordan, CNN
June 4, 2013 -- Updated 1601 GMT (0001 HKT)

The bear and the old photograph were left in Bristol Airport's departure lounge more than 14 months ago.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The bear was left in the departure lounge of Bristol Airport over a year ago
With it was a photograph, dated 1918, showing two small children with a bear
Efforts by airport staff to trace the owners of the bear have so far failed
"It is obvious the bear has been well loved for many years," airport spokeswoman says

London (CNN) -- His fur is worn in places, his nose is rather threadbare and he's a little saggy round the middle.

But staff at Bristol Airport in the west of England believe the elderly teddy bear left in the departure lounge more than a year ago, along with a photograph dated 1918, must have a loving family somewhere.

The picture, produced as a postcard from the studio of Dura Ltd., shows a teddy with two small children in light dresses. The older one, her hair tied in ribbons, has her arm around the bear.

On the back is written: "With dearest love and kisses to our darling Daddie from your loving little daughter & Sonnie. Dora & Glyn."

Also written is: "Taken on baby's birthday March 4 1918, one year and 5 months old."

Airport staff were initially hopeful that the bear would be reclaimed, but so far no one has come forward.

Efforts by airport staff and police to trace its owners have also proved fruitless -- so now the airport is hoping the general public can lend a hand in solving the mystery.

"It is obvious the bear has been well loved for many years," said Jacqui Mills, a spokeswoman for Bristol Airport. "During the last 14 months we had been hopeful that the search would result in him being reunited to his family. We have not been successful in this search and have drawn a blank."

Since the case was publicized, history and teddy bear experts from as far afield as the United States and Canada have been in touch via e-mail to offer help in finding information, she said.

Some antique experts believe the teddy is a British-made Farnell Bear from the early 1900s. Others believe it could be either French or German.

Anyone with information that might help find the bear's owners should contact: yourairport@bristolairport.com.

Ring found with inscription 23 Dec 1947

leannw3 — 2013-06-14 13:17:19Z

I recently found a ring in an old jewelry box that was engraved with 2 sets of initials and a date. The date is 23 Dec 1947. One set of initials is almost unreadable but may start with a C and the last one is a Mc. The other set is most likely FEG. If this wedding ring belongs to a family who would like it, I would very much like them to have it.

Gana con Zaidore!!!

taof_13 — 2013-06-10 18:55:35Z

“Tu Exito…, Nuestro Prioridad!!!”
Es Hora de que Ingreses A La Web que Primero Piensa en ti.
Por que Nacimos para servirte, es que te Brindamos la Mejor Oportunidad de Alcanzar La Verdadera Libertad Economica.
Ingresa a
http://zaidore.webnode.com/

Gana con Zaidore!!!

taof_13 — 2013-06-10 18:55:13Z

century-old lost teddy bear and photo at Bristol, England airport

mi2early — 2013-06-09 13:43:45Z

From http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/04/world/europe/uk-lost-teddy...:

"His fur is worn in places, his nose is rather threadbare and he's a little saggy round the middle.

"But staff at Bristol Airport in the west of England believe the elderly teddy bear left in the departure lounge more than a year ago, along with a photograph dated 1918, must have a loving family somewhere.

"The picture, produced as a postcard from the studio of Dura Ltd., shows a teddy with two small children in light dresses. The older one, her hair tied in ribbons, has her arm around the bear.

"On the back is written: 'With dearest love and kisses to our darling Daddie from your loving little daughter & Sonnie. Dora & Glyn.'

"Also written is: 'Taken on baby's birthday March 4 1918, one year and 5 months old.'

"Airport staff were initially hopeful that the bear would be reclaimed, but so far no one has come forward.

"Efforts by airport staff and police to trace its owners have also proved fruitless -- so now the airport is hoping the general public can lend a hand in solving the mystery.

"It is obvious the bear has been well loved for many years,' said Jacqui Mills, a spokeswoman for Bristol Airport. 'During the last 14 months we had been hopeful that the search would result in him being reunited to his family. We have not been successful in this search and have drawn a blank.'

"Since the case was publicized, history and teddy bear experts from as far afield as the United States and Canada have been in touch via e-mail to offer help in finding information, she said.

"Some antique experts believe the teddy is a British-made Farnell Bear from the early 1900s. Others believe it could be either French or German.

"Anyone with information that might help find the bear's owners should contact: yourairport@bristolairport.com."

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

Susan_Goerke — 2013-06-07 20:09:35Z

I believe that the complaint was about photos being attached to the *wrong* people.

Ancestry notifies everyone about new hints, including pictures and anything else attached to an ancestor that might be in our own tree. It's the way sharing works and it's up to each of us to make sure we do that responsibly.

I don't expect everyone who uses the pictures, newspaper articles, etc. that I've shared to contact me or give me 'credit' or a citation. Ancestry does not who originally submitted the photo.

Btw, I use my reader (Feedly) to stay updated about who uses my images, articles, etc. It also notifies me about who attaches the same Census or military record as I have. This is how I make contact with most 'cousins' and it's a real bummer when I find out it went to a Private Tree. I assume those types don't want to be bothered by other researchers.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

Susan_Goerke — 2013-06-07 20:08:57Z

Why do family research, have a tree or own ancestor photographs if you don't want to share? Isn't one of the big points to this to honor and remember our ancestors? Not to hog their lives to ourselves or receive credit, but to share their memories.

To bedinabowl - I do hope you get this fixed. Researchers can and do make mistakes but adding the wrong names to photos you aren't sure of is a whopper!

One option is to "watermark" the photos you post and perhaps add names and dates and places right onto the digital photo copy before you post it here or anywhere else.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

marjeadams — 2013-06-06 22:48:11Z

I have had instances of the download and re-upload with no credit given to me. This is not the way ancestry planned it and I think they should intervene when there is a complaint. (Dates of uploads clearly show who originally added the photo.)

When you add photos based on Ancestry hints just be very sure the person is your ancestor, and that you have proof. Ancestry hints can be wrong. I have an example of the wrong photo added to a person of same name as my gr grandfather. There are others who do give credit but added the person and photo just because the last name is the same and they might be an ancestor, but they have no proof that they are in the same line as my ancestor.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

PinionL — 2013-06-06 19:03:53Z

Yeah, I figured that was the case, but I just wanted to be clear on what the complaints were about as to avoid offending anyone.

At any rate, in reference to what you said about the notifications, I feel kind of guilty now! My primary tree is private, but it's not so much because I don't to be bothered (in fact I really would like to get in touch with others researching the same lines!); it's because I'm worried that some of my research may be inaccurate and I don't want someone else being lead astray by what I included in my tree.

Anyway, I think we're kind of derailing the thread now...

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

PinionL — 2013-06-06 17:43:45Z

I know it's been about a month since anyone has posted to this thread, but I wanted to respond so that I'm clear on what the general consensus is.

For those of you that are upset about copying photos, are you referring to someone attaching the photo to their tree via Ancestry in which it gives credit back to you the original owner? Or are these individuals downloading your photo and then re-uploading it as their own? I've heard of and seen the latter happen (and think it's completely wrong), but I guess I'm not completely sure what's wrong with the former.

There have been several times that Ancestry has informed me that there is a photo associated with one of my distant relatives, so I just add it. I don't see how this is a problem since this is how the website is set up, but I wanted to post on here to make sure I wasn't bothering anyone by doing this.

Thanks.

Re: 1910 Sutter Creek School

keninnesiii — 2013-06-04 17:43:19Z

I do not live in Sutter Creek but have been researching the Obradovich, Glavinovich and Fontenrose families that lived and did mining in that area.
thanks, Ken

Re: 1910 Sutter Creek School

keninnesiii — 2013-06-04 17:40:33Z

my email is travelkfi@yahoo.com.
Thanks very much,

Re: Personal pictures

marjeadams — 2013-06-01 03:38:15Z

I agree with all your sentiments.
Apparently Ancestry's short-sighted policy is , "hands off,let the subscribers fight it out" when they should be encouraging responsible use and supporting the subscribers whose data is misused.

Re: 1910 Sutter Creek School

NormaHamrick35 — 2013-06-01 03:21:58Z

I will copy the picture and have my daughter e-mail to you do you live in California near Sutter Creek now. I would like your e-mail address.

Personal pictures

Messina70 — 2013-05-31 18:46:50Z

I too have had pictures taken by some unknown. I wonder what his agenda is. I'm sad to say that it is one of the lowest things that someone could have done. Those pictures are special to a particular family and should not be used to enhance someone's tree, book or advertisement. Ancestry.com wanted me to contact the person which I did. I am very disappointed with ancestry.com, I feel that they should take some inititive in helping their clientele, when they feel that someone is taking advantage of them. I hope ancestry reads this, I let you guys know if anyone gets back to me.

The story of a dozen generations

KLhubbard — 2013-05-31 13:32:08Z

I have a copy of Orin Sideners book, left to me by a Sidener cousin. I'm related only through marriage and have as much as I need on the Sidener line. I'll be happy to ship my copy to anyone who can prove a Sidener connection. Preferably a descendant of Nicholas Sidener and Minerva Rush. It is big and heavy.

Re: 1910 Sutter Creek School

keninne — 2013-05-30 19:18:24Z

I would appreciate it if you could email the photo of the 1910 sutter creek school with Olga Obradovich in it. I have been looking for photos of the Obradovich and Glavinovich families from there
Thanks, Ken

Grace Merwin, 15 years, 1889, Garrettsville, Ohio

bellanonna49 — 2013-05-21 05:24:21Z

I buy old photographs from local antique stores and try to locate family they belong to. The attached photo was purchased in Springfield, Oregon, USA. Let me know if you are interested in the original, no charge.

The photographer was stem & Gates of Garrettsville, Ohio, and the writing on the back is 'Grace Merwin, 1889, age 15 yrs.

Re: Legal Accounting Documents

cgyelton1 — 2013-05-19 23:09:38Z

Thanks for replying to my post. You make some good points for keeping documentation in the event that family members lay claim to certain family heirlooms that weren't left to them in the will.

I actually had that happen when a cousin of mine wanted some things of my father's when he passed away and couldn't understand how it came to be that my father left them to his only grandson instead of him. Never mind that he was my dad's nephew by marriage (my mother's sisters son)and they weren't particularly close. I remember looking at him, laughing, and saying "Are you serious? You gotta be kidding me!" People respond in interesting ways when these issues come up in life.

John J. Eberly, b.1894, son of Henry/Lizzie, of Lancaster Co., PA

margerice1 — 2013-05-18 05:03:34Z

I have an original Cabinet Card photograph of “John Eberly – of Camargo”, which I’d like to get back to descendants or family members. Photo was taken in Lancaster (Lancaster Co.) PA, and he looks to be about 18/19 years old. Camargo is in Lancaster Co., PA

I found John J. Eberly in the 1900 census for Providence (Lancaster Co.) PA, born Nov 1894, son of Henry N. and Lizzie A. Eberly. In 1910 & 1920, he is shown living with parents in Lancaster Co. WWI Draft Registration shows 12 Nov 1894 birthdate. Ancestry Public Member Tree shows mother’s maiden name as Zercher. In FindAGrave, Lancaster Co., PA John J. Eberly is shown as born 12 Nov and died 24 Apr 1972 and his wife’s name was Laura K. Meck Eberly.

Get back to me at margerice@prodigy.net if you are related to John Eberly.

Re: Family Bible page of Owens--not mine

richnwyman — 2013-05-17 12:58:20Z

Matilda and Peter were my grandmother (Vondell) parents. Her house burned to the ground in the 1960,s and everything was lost except Sammy, he was bed ridden with bone cancer and had to be removed on a hospital bed. I have the family Bible from her that was presented to her in 1964. It is spotty at best. I would love a copy of the bible pages. Also any information on Vondell would be awesome. I know her first name is Nolan, but have no idea where it cam from. my address is 5840 Opaline Dr. Waterford, MI 48327. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. Aunt Winnie was an awesome woman, I will remember her kindness forever.

Zora A. Stewart, b.1899, dau of Eva Martin Stewart, lived Boone Co., IN

margerice1 — 2013-05-11 00:57:30Z

I have an original 6”x9” photograph of “Miss Zora Aderine Stewart – Lebanon, Ind.” and a man, likely Raleigh E. Hiland. This is surely a wedding photo, and I’d like to get it back to descendants or family members. She looks to be about 18 and he about 22.

Zora A. Stewart is shown in 1900 census for Boone Co., with birthdate of Feb 1899, daughter of Eva Stewart. IL 1920, Zora is age 11, daughter of Eva Stewart (divorced), and they lived in Harrison (Boone Co.) IN with Eva’s parents Henry and Nancy Martin. I searched SSDI for a Zora born Feb 1899, and found only a Zora A. Hiland, born 8 Feb 1899 and that she died Feb 1981 Lebanon (Boone Co.) IN. The 1930 census for Center (Boone Co.) IN shows Zora Hiland, wife of Rollie E. Hiland. Same location 1940, with husband Ernest Hiland and four children. Ancestry Public Member Tree shows his name was Raleigh Ernest Hiland, and he was born 10 Oct 1895, son of Park and Anna.

Get back to me at margerice@prodigy.net if you are related to Raleigh Ernest or Zora A. (Stewart) Hiland.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

bedandbowl — 2013-05-08 23:29:49Z

Thanks, Marje. I hope that your photos are removed from unrelated trees as well, I guess I was lucky. I told the person that I was contacting Ancestry management about it, and that may have encouraged him to consider his actions. I guess I never thought about such an eventuality when I posted my family pictures. I was ( and still am ) so excited to share with kin. I've actually met several distant cousins and it has been a real joy in my life. I'm hoping to plan a gathering where we can all exchange our Hicks family pictures in person. To me, taking pictures of people to whom you are not related is like buying old photographs at a flea market and claiming they're your relatives. It's just odd.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

marjeadams — 2013-05-08 16:37:49Z

Your feelings about your photos being used is shared by me and many others,"I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that how I feel about my family pictures is selfish and proprietary." It is NOT selfish or proprietary. The photos are not in the public domain. They were held privately by you and your family; you should have some control over where and how they are used.

I am happy for you that the person who copied them inappropriately was willing to remove them from his tree. I still have at least 4 very stubborn people who will not do this. (I just can not understand why they insist on keeping pictures that are not their family.)

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

bedandbowl — 2013-05-07 13:28:42Z

I wrote to the individual and he has removed the material from his tree, admonishing me for having a public tree ( which I have now changed to private after this incident ) and saying that if I don't want to share I shouldn't be "asking for help" from people with public trees. I feel like he is missing the point. First of all, I never asked him for help, I asked him who he was and whether we were related after he had copied and posted the first few photographs. When he said that we were "possibly related but only distantly through in-laws and removed several times by marriage", I visited his tree and saw a voluminous amount of media and couldn't find a connection. A few days later, I got a notification that he had copied almost thirty more pieces of media, including photographs of another branch of my family to which he has absolutely no connection. So, I am left a little puzzled still over whether I over-reacted. I feel now that if he had simply talked with me and explained the connection ( if there is one ) I wouldn't have been bothered. I have had over a half dozen distant relatives copy media/photos, but they always contact me to establish a connection, and that's the whole point, isn't it ? Anyway, he has removed them and I have made my tree private, but I assume that fellow members will still be able to contact me if they see we are researching the same lines. I have collaborated with other members in research dozens of times, and don't feel that I "owe" them my family pictures. I've learned a few lessons throughout this experience, which is good. I will be going through my media and assigning due credit to all my sources be they public websites or not ( I have direct family who have shared family photos with me & even they should get a reference ). I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that how I feel about my family pictures is selfish and proprietary. I really do not mind sharing and actually love sharing them with my relatives, for whom they hold intense meaning. My reluctance to spread the faces of my Grandmother and Great Grandmother, and HER mother, etc. more stems from my need to protect their images from misuse and irresponsible replication and loss of control over how their images will be used. I love them, and want them to be treated respectfully. I guess I'm just on the learning curve here. The internet is a big place, and I'm just trying to find my way. Sigh ~
Thanks everyone for talking this out with me. It helped !

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

deb511851 — 2013-05-07 04:30:03Z

I know how you feel. My mom passed away when I was thirteen. I posted pictures of her and someone took them and posted them to a family that isn't ours. I too felt violated and made my tree private. I enjoy being able to share my family tree with others, but am very unhappy about people abusing my hard work. Others have taken my photos in the past, but using my mom's photos like that was the final straw.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

shootingstar2 — 2013-05-07 04:02:22Z

Susan I understand what you are saying I wanted to share with family and to find family and I have found family threw this site. But for people to take things who are not family that is just wrong. If they are family they should say something and if they are not they should stay out. I have been doi g this for over 20 years and what people are doing on this site is not right.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

shootingstar2 — 2013-05-07 03:52:29Z

Yes this has also happen to me also. I also have made mine privet . I have had two people who have asked for me to let them be added to my family tree so they can see some of my things and I have asked how are they related to my family and I have not herd back from any of them. Some other people have taken things from my site and I haven't seen where they are any part of my family. I think it is people who are making books and selling them. I know just what you are going threw. I also think Ancestry use our family trees also. And if you print your page out it has Ancestry on your page like you got it from them when you have put your family in at first. I have been a member for over six years and have paid a lot out.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

bedandbowl — 2013-05-06 20:48:59Z

The watermark is a good idea, though I don't know how to do it yet. I do share my photos, happily, with folks researching the same areas and I've found many relatives. That's all good & I'm fine with that. HOWEVER, this guy is, I believe, simply hoovering up media from other trees in a strange way. I'm bothered by two things about his behavior: He complicates the efforts of good, thorough researchers by building his tree willy nilly with no corroboration or fact checking. He has something like 19,000 pieces of media, I mean, come on !
Secondly, these are original photographs and tin types of my people, my family. They were entrusted to me, and this doesn't feel like a respectful use of them.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

marjeadams — 2013-05-06 15:41:41Z

2 Trees would be double the work wouldn't it?--not a good option.
The photos I add are for my close relatives (who live far away) to find without asking permission to look.

I still believe that Ancestry should be more responsive to paying members'needs.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

ReflectionsOfLove — 2013-05-06 04:49:37Z

The best thing is not to post your photos in a public tree, unless you want people to see them (and possibly copy them).
Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
But you could have two trees. One public without photos, and one private with photos.

The easiest way to duplicate the tree is to download it in a gedcom file, then upload it with a new name.

Having said that, as I've shared my own photos many times now, I've become more comfortable with other people seeing and copying them. It costs me nothing, and brings distant cousins happiness.
I just don't ever post photos online that I don't want to share.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

marjeadams — 2013-05-06 03:30:50Z

I understand exactly how violated you feel--this has happened with my photos also--in several instances. None of the people who copied the photos were related to anyone in my line and none of the people would remove the photos. I know several people who made their trees private because of this. However, I am reluctant to go private because I have met relatives whom I did not know I had because they saw my public tree. But I think Ancestry's policy (of everything on a public tree is fair game) is wrong. Photos on a public tree are not like vital statistics which are in the public domain, photos are privately held and should not be able to be used by others without the permission of the owner. Ancestry should have a category of tree between Public and private that would prevent copying photos without permission. So far the ears and brains at Ancestry are deaf to this.

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

bedandbowl — 2013-05-05 18:23:21Z

Thank you for responding. This has been really upsetting. None of the people are living, but they are my family photos and I feel entrusted to use them respectfully. I have been a member for years and love Ancestry, this is the first time I have felt ill used. This person is not a relative, and has admitted as much. I have sent him a message asking him to remove the photos. I called Ancestry and they were very nice and helpful. They told me to email this address: customersolution@ancestry.com. Am trying that next.
I'm mostly sad that a site that has brought me so much happiness ( including meeting descendants ) has now made me feel kind of violated.

Thanks again for your advice and quick response.

Kate

Re: Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

ReflectionsOfLove — 2013-05-05 18:05:01Z

Hello,
I think you should call Ancestry.com and ask them to intervene.
Do the photos contain living people?

I understand privacy issues, it took me awhile to be able to share my own photos. I put many on FindAGrave, and have seen them copied from there to here without acknowledgement, as if the person taking them owned them.

In the case of family, people get so happy to find a picture they're excited to re-share them, as they would "re-tweet" or "like" on Facebook. It's the way society has been evolving.
Someone who is unrelated may feel like they're doing a good service by making the photo viewable by other family members.
If the person has good manners they should remove the photos at your request. But if not I think you can get them taken down, they are yours. Call customer service until you get it resolved.
Good luck.

p.s. this forum is actually for lost and found items, so customer service does not read here.

Public vs Private Trees and Family Photographs

bedandbowl — 2013-05-05 16:41:33Z

I've been with Ancestry a few years now with no problems, but recently someone took a huge number of family pictures from my page without talking with me. Some of the family members were labeled as being unidentified, but the person posted them with names that have not been corroborated. I contacted the member, and they aren't even sure that we're related, yet they posted the pictures of my family in their tree as though we are. I am flabbergasted and appalled at this sloppy research and wondering if anyone else has had this happen. I found it very disturbing and disrespectful. I made my tree private as a result, but now don't see the point of continuing my membership and am thinking of removing all of my media so that this won't happen again. Very disappointed by this experience. What can be done to get my family pictures back ?

Re: Legal Accounting Documents

talbotrail — 2013-05-01 15:27:55Z

I don't know how much "genealogical" value is in these documents, but I can tell you that IF there is a chance of someone in the family crabbing YEARS later about "Greedy got all the good china" or "that was a Tiffany lamp that Jackas's-now-ex-wife took", this paperwork may come in handy.

Or my personal favorite (from my in-laws side) - the bitter relative who was left out of the will because they did not repay a sizable loan, suddenly has a snit fit years later and claims that money was never borrowed - now that all the evidence has been shredded.

Legal Accounting Documents

cgyelton1 — 2013-04-29 17:19:18Z

Hello,
I recently came across old bank statements and cancelled checks of my deceased mother. Does anyone suggest documentating this information? I realize from a family history standpoint it provides loads of information regarding goods and services purchased that is part of the picture of her life yet how much value is there in documenting every single check, statement, etc.? The task of recording and archiving these materials seems daunting. However there so are so many other tasks in family history & genealogy that are daunting as well!

Re: David Bacci Picture

msiegel95 — 2013-04-26 17:15:34Z

Thanks! That is my dad! he is, however, from louisville Ky. I have his original photo of this day framed in my home. Dad is in the center of the picture!

Re: Photos from AR

kellinez — 2013-04-25 11:46:20Z

I was unable to email you privately (received "unable to delivery" auto-reply)...hopefully you still visit this board :)

I am interested in viewing the pictures you have, if still available.

Please let me know at your convenience.

Sincerely,
Kelli Walker-Martinez

Re: Young /Williams, Borden Family Photos

jessicado22 — 2013-04-25 00:55:11Z

Hi, sorry I guess I forgot to update this message -- I have since sent the photos of the women to a relative. I do still have the photo of Thomas Borden however. I will send an email shortly :)

Re: Mabel Dauntler, dau of Lydia (Grant) Clark, late 1800s

mcdd12 — 2013-04-23 14:41:47Z

Mabel, born 8 Oct 1890 Elgin, NE. Death 19 Jul 1953 Dixon Ill. Married Joseph Dauntler 9 Dec 1914, Illinois. One Daughter still living.

Re: The Family Histories of Johann Schenck & Katherina Ziegler

LDalin — 2013-04-21 04:31:19Z

Lori,
John Schenck and Katherina Ziegler are my great grandparents -- and I am so hoping you still have this book!!! Please contact me - thanks! Lark

Re: Young /Williams, Borden Family Photos

Pdods — 2013-04-21 03:20:55Z

These are my grandfather, great grandmother, and grandmother's sister.
I am currently reading a whole box of letters between May H Young and Myrta K Young written from the Philippine Islands in 1903-1913 which my family just unearthed from a family house. I would love to have the three ladies' photos, as we do not have those. What do I need to facilitate that? Thanks for posting these photos. It is wonderful.
dods@comcast.net

Ray Family Bible 1815-1914

lbugieda — 2013-04-15 15:25:27Z

We have an old Ray Family Bible starting w/marriage of Benjamin Ray and Mary Johnson 3-5-1815 through Death of Ray or Amy J, Ray (illegible) Easter Sunday 4/12/1914. Looking to find family who would be interested in having the bible.

Old Photo of Linnie Books - Iowa

RandallMcDaniel44 — 2013-04-15 02:03:04Z

On a recent trip to Illinois I purchased several old photos. At one of the local antique shops I bought a photo showing a young woman. On the back is written "Linnie Books, Sigourney, IA". The photo was taken at a studio in Sigourney, Iowa around 1910. Attached is a copy of the photo.

If this is one of your ancestors, please contact me.

Randy
Webster, Texas

Re: The Family Histories of Johann Schenck & Katherina Ziegler

SweetPickle5 — 2013-04-14 01:50:10Z

To anyone interested in the contents of this book, I have it and would be happy to share information from the book. Just send me an email. J. Arnett

Re: WWII Photos to share with families

Weese1 — 2013-04-13 23:27:09Z

Hi Beth, Another site you can post them on is deadfred.com. I collect old photos and post on there all the time. (Recently 2 of my photos went home to their family.) You might have some luck there. The people who run the site are very nice and are prompt at returning emails if you write with questions or problems. All the best - Lisa

Re: Photo George Beman, 1882 Illinois

Ebeman1 — 2013-04-12 22:58:10Z

Hello... George is either my great grand father or great great grand uncle for whom my great grandfather named.... Would love copies and or more information.... Thank you- Elizabeth Anne Beman Anne4aeri@gmail.com

Re: Photographs of Ellie Hewett or Hewitt

JHewett79 — 2013-04-12 17:34:28Z

Hi,

I have an Ellie Hewett in my tree but she was in NC. I don't know where her husband was from but his name was Charles Wilbur Clemmons. Has anyone claimed the pictures of Ellie yet?