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.

The same for 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.

Katie Hatton recently had her age upgraded by the GRG by one year, with her birth year being moved from 1877 to 1876 based on her early-life documentation:

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2025/02/23/katie-hatton-revalidation-announcement/

They did the same with Eliza Underwood, confirming her at 114-318.

There tends to be evidence for both 114 and 113, as people will know.

Though whether they made the change based on the weight of all evidence, or to have a point of difference from other validating entities, remains unknown.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

There tends to be evidence for both 114 and 113, as people will know.

Similarly, for Delphia Welford, there is evidence for 117, 116, and 115 from her early-life, though with the strongest evidence for 117.

I wonder if they'll similarly decide to upgrade Joe Willie Hollins's birth year to 1904 and his final age to 114y,35d because his 1910 and 1920 US Census entries both imply that he was 2-3 years older than he claimed, and he claimed a final age of 112y,35d.

 

@futurist the difference for Delphia Welford is that all of those ages are already inconsistent with her claimed age, so it matters more what the greatest preponderance of the evidence implies (indeed there are only a few of the early records that don't suggest 117). The other cases (bar Joe Hollins), there is only a one year age difference between the claimed age and what some records imply, giving a greater chance for age rounding or just flat-out census errors to give a false impression of a discrepancy.

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@futurist the difference for Delphia Welford is that all of those ages are already inconsistent with her claimed age, so it matters more what the greatest preponderance of the evidence implies (indeed there are only a few of the early records that don't suggest 117). The other cases (bar Joe Hollins), there is only a one year age difference between the claimed age and what some records imply, giving a greater chance for age rounding or just flat-out census errors to give a false impression of a discrepancy.

Yes, you're right. For Delphia, it's clear that a significantly higher age was correct relative to the age that she claimed. It was just a matter of determining just how much higher, as you said.

For Joe Willie Hollins, it's quite interesting: His WWII draft registration card and his obituary both imply a final age of 112y,35d for him, but not his two earliest records/documents, which imply a final age of 114 or 115 for him. But his siblings were not unequivocally consistent about their claimed ages during their lifetimes, so that still creates some margin of error in regards to this. It's a huge shame that an original birth record and/or baptismal record does not exist for him, at least to our own knowledge.

 

Posted by: @930310

↑

@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.

By that criteria, a lot of 1880s-born US SCs also have shaky validations if they have nothing (or at least nothing which gives their age/date/month/year of birth) from before the 1900 US Census, no?

Philip Sharp's validation would also be shaky by this logic since AFAIK he and his family don't appear to be listed in the 1910 US Census for whatever reason. And of course Charles Edward Graves's validation would also be shaky because he and his family are not listed in the 1900 US Census for whatever reason, though they do have a somewhat ambiguous but still relatively clear 1896 Mississippi school census entry for them.

 

GRG validated Julia Maria Francisca Simao (BRA, 116? 115? 114? under 110?...who knows...) on September 2024.

It would appear that the GRG validation has been recently retracted (she no longer appears on the 2024 validation list).

As someone said, if the GRG retracted the validation, then they need to come out with a press release stating the reason why. They can't just silently devalidate a high-aged case like this under the radar.

They removed her validation, in the future another similar claimant will get validation status for a period and the cycle repeats.

Shame on them, as usual.

Posted by: @ale76

↑

GRG validated Julia Maria Francisca Simao (BRA, 116? 115? 114? under 110?...who knows...) on September 2024.

It would appear that the GRG validation has been recently retracted (she no longer appears on the 2024 validation list).

As someone said, if the GRG retracted the validation, then they need to come out with a press release stating the reason why. They can't just silently devalidate a high-aged case like this under the radar.

They removed her validation, in the future another similar claimant will get validation status for a period and the cycle repeats.

Shame on them, as usual.

The GRG stated that most of these "validations" were just added by an ex-member of the GRG, which is why all these de-validations are going on, but I agree, they definitely should've released a news article about her considering her high claimed age.

 

@billy-robinson They should have removed all the uncertain validations ASAP rather than remove them one by one when they decide to research the case. The validate first, research later model is just very unprofessional.

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@billy-robinson They should have removed all the uncertain validations ASAP rather than remove them one by one when they decide to research the case. The validate first, research later model is just very unprofessional.

They have a list of unvalidated supercentenarians (who were added by this member) and there's a lot of people on that list, so they've clearly removed A LOT of the "validations", but it was obviously done at a slow process.

The GRG has definitely messed up really badly with this "validate first and then research" process because of this one member, but I always hope for the best for LQ and the GRG, but obviously a lot of members are skeptical about the latter (for valid reasons that I do know obviously). Not every organisation is 100% perfect, the GRG certainly isn't perfect.

 

@ale76, @billy-robinson and @musicotic Couldn't agree more, the entire way this case was handled couldn't be worse, it is beyond unprofessional. And the "excuse" of these more doubtful cases having been added by a former member should just be more of a reason for there to be an official de-validation, in my opinion.

@billy-robinson Yes, I remember when they moved a bunch of cases to that list of unvalidated cases. What I don't know is why they didn't just move all the cases they hadn't researched yet to that list as soon as possible - why list a case as validated if you haven't researched or validated them yet? That would have saved them the embarrassment of having to devalidate dozens of cases over the course of over a year now. 

 

If any organization is allegedly hijacked and their work product compromised, they shouldn't pretend as if their output is all normal, but correct it as soon as possible.