Posted by: @futurist

↑

Out of curiosity: Marco, would you have personally verified James Monroe King (1854-1967) based on the evidence that we currently have for him just like the GRG did? Or would you have insisted on a definitive 1860 US Census entry beforehand?

Personally? No, I would not have. The case is hopelessly inconsistent (including names) even without the 1860 US Census record.

Posted by: @marco

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Out of curiosity: Marco, would you have personally verified James Monroe King (1854-1967) based on the evidence that we currently have for him just like the GRG did? Or would you have insisted on a definitive 1860 US Census entry beforehand?

Personally? No, I would not have. The case is hopelessly inconsistent (including names) even without the 1860 US Census record.

For names, you mean for James King's younger brother, Early Edward McCullough "Mack" King (1855/6/7-1927)?

BTW, a question about the GRG: Does anyone here know why they haven't revalidated Ella Gantt (1886-2001) as being born in 1886--instead of 1888--like her 1900 US Census entry and other relatively early documents imply? She's currently still verified as being born in 1888, apparently, but her 1900 US Census and early 20th century documents support 1886:

https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Ella_Gantt

Posted by: @seto2001

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@futurist they have validated a hundred cases in the last month - eg Henry Tseng, Wash Wesley. Nobody has been keeping track for the reasons outlined in the latest thread

Henry Tseng I would presume was verified with the help of his koseki record from Japan? He's of Chinese/Taiwanese descent but was born in Japan, IIRC.

 

I don't believe so. One of the validators in his case is listed as MHLW Japan. As far as I know, they do not validate the ages of Japanese nationals in foreign countries. Additionally, they do not publicly reveal information about Japanese SCs in other countries in their September updates (Respect for the Aged Day / Keirō no Hi), as they probably don't even have that information.

So, how exactly was the MHLW involved in this validation, if at all...?

 

MHLW Japan is also listed as one of the validators of Frank Kenichi Morimitsu (1886-1998) even though he too was only born in Japan but died in the US:

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2022-validations/

@futurist At the very least they didn't claim to cite MHLW Japan in their "validation" of Fuyu Miwa, a SC claimant who immigrated to the US in 1936 at age 47.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240719031416/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2000-validations/

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@futurist At the very least they didn't claim to cite MHLW Japan in their "validation" of Fuyu Miwa, a SC claimant who immigrated to the US in 1936 at age 47.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20240719031416/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2000-validations/

Just a hypothesis, but maybe they didn't need to, if her family sent in their own documentation for her to the GRG?

Posted by: @charlesm09

↑

GRG has validated Ms. Ophelia Burks (USA) (Oct. 25, 1903 – Sep. 27, 2018, 114) (formally validated on Jan. 7, 2020).

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

Congratulations to the family of Mrs Burks.

That is a very “senior” validation at 114-337 and good enough to currently be spot 70 on the all time list. 

Posted by: @930310

↑

@hoopy and to ignore crediting people who helped out with the validation (and including people who did not contribute).

So where do we stand on Mrs. Burks? She's not at No. 77 on the LQ list but is on Ale's Top 100 list. It seems some reliable researchers were involved in her case.

If we go down the age table a little bit further, there is also Georgie Jordan (USA) 114-144 and Ida Stewart (JAM) 113-364, that I am aware of, that have been validated by the GRG, but not yet by other validating entities.

In line with this, there has most likely been a diminishing level of trust, by many here and elsewhere, in GRG validations which have emerged over recent months, to the extent that they are now no longer reported on this site.

Mrs Burks was one of the earlier ones in this regard, when perhaps the GRG had a higher degree of respect from many, than they do now.

Jimmy may be the best person to comment (at this stage) on the likelihood of Mrs Burks being a strong case, but I’m sure you will find comments on this site that suggest Ida Stewart did not appear able to be objectively validated based on known documentation … so the GRG have either found additional documents or else made what could best be termed a very arbitrary decision.

Just who is doing the apparent validation work for the GRG is another interesting consideration, as their team members for validation appear scarce (at best).

When you take these two, add Edna Kern and Easter Wiggins, (including the feedback members have provided on this site) we see four “big validations” age wise - possibly being an attempt to try and still be seen as relevant in this field- rather than anything else.

Thanks Chris.

I'm just concentrating on the Top 200 for my own interest, as I think below that things just get too murky.

Ecad and Jimmy were involved in Burks' validation so that's good enough for me.

@chrisr Burks lacks a 1910 census, which means that the validation is a bit uncertain. 1920 census and marriage record both support 1903.

Jordan has a 1900 census which support her age and a marriage record from 1898 that gives no age, so it is also a bit shaky.

Hmm, seeing this discussion, I should probably take a stance on including or excluding Mrs Wiggins, Mrs Kern, and Mrs Burks on/from my lists.

Posted by: @marco

↑

Hmm, seeing this discussion, I should probably take a stance on including or excluding Mrs Wiggins, Mrs Kern, and Mrs Burks on/from my lists.

Posted by: @marco

↑

Hmm, seeing this discussion, I should probably take a stance on including or excluding Mrs Wiggins, Mrs Kern, and Mrs Burks on/from my lists.

I myself independently researched Kern but never got around to submitting documents for her.

Interesting that the GRG has recently validated some Balkan and Chinese cases. Impressive that they were able to verify them by modern standards, with the 20-year-rule, identity switch/theft being ruled out, and everything!

@futurist It’s not that interesting or impressive, given the dismal state of the GRG’s “validations” at the moment. They’re not validating them by modern, scientific standards, they’re validating them by GRG standards, that is to say little to no standards or concern for accuracy, evidence or accountability. Hopefully many of these cases do turn out to be true, but until they’re validated by a competent and reliable organisation, there’s no reason to consider them validated.

Posted by: @simon-frogg

↑

@futurist It’s not that interesting or impressive, given the dismal state of the GRG’s “validations” at the moment. They’re not validating them by modern, scientific standards, they’re validating them by GRG standards, that is to say little to no standards or concern for accuracy, evidence or accountability. Hopefully many of these cases do turn out to be true, but until they’re validated by a competent and reliable organisation, there’s no reason to consider them validated.

That might be fair enough as far as it goes, but that raises the question: What are reliable standards? Would LQ, for instance, insist on a 10-year-rule or would a 20-year-rule be good enough for it?

Interesting to note GRG validated as supercentenarian an american woman of 93 y.o. whose name was Nanni Brown-Turner. 

Lately they corrected this nonsense:

• Nannie Brown-Turner - (USA, September 13 1911  / September 13 1929 - March 4 2023) - 93 years, 172 days

Congratulations, as usual, for their capillary work.