Global Supercentenarian Forum
The Supercentenarian World
Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
26/10/2023 5:54 pm
Recent validations, accepted on 9 and 25 October 2023:
Eliza Underwood, USA, 15 Mar 1867 - 27 Jan 1981, 113 years and 318 days. Former World's Oldest Person, surpassing the lifespan of Fannie Thomas. Oldest validated person ever to have died at the time of her death. Biography.
Tome Tanaka, JPN, 28 Oct 1912 - Present, 110+ years. Biography.
I must say that I am puzzled by the logic behind validating James Holt as born in 1865 but Eliza Underwood as born in 1867 - it feels like inconsistent use of census records to revise an age upwards.
diego reacted
26/10/2023 6:04 pm
Recent validations, accepted on 9 and 25 October 2023:
Eliza Underwood, USA, 15 Mar 1867 - 27 Jan 1981, 113 years and 318 days. Former World's Oldest Person, surpassing the lifespan of Fannie Thomas. Oldest validated person ever to have died at the time of her death. Biography.
Tome Tanaka, JPN, 28 Oct 1912 - Present, 110+ years. Biography.
I must say that I am puzzled by the logic behind validating James Holt as born in 1865 but Eliza Underwood as born in 1867 - it feels like inconsistent use of census records to revise an age upwards.
James Holt actually claimed to be born in 1865, though.
Profile picture: Marita Camacho Quirós (1911-Present)
Topic starter
26/10/2023 6:08 pm
Recent validations, accepted on 9 and 25 October 2023:
Eliza Underwood, USA, 15 Mar 1867 - 27 Jan 1981, 113 years and 318 days. Former World's Oldest Person, surpassing the lifespan of Fannie Thomas. Oldest validated person ever to have died at the time of her death. Biography.
Tome Tanaka, JPN, 28 Oct 1912 - Present, 110+ years. Biography.
I must say that I am puzzled by the logic behind validating James Holt as born in 1865 but Eliza Underwood as born in 1867 - it feels like inconsistent use of census records to revise an age upwards.
James Holt actually claimed to be born in 1865, though.
I thought that he claimed birth in 1866? My mistake.
26/10/2023 7:48 pm
Still, a birth in 1867 is an interesting choice for Eliza Underwood. All early-life documentation up until 1910 reports a birth in 1866. (The 1900 census even points at Oct 1865.) I suppose LQ has gone for the conservative option: going with Mrs Underwood's claim.
Overduidelijk misschien.
Topic starter
26/10/2023 8:06 pm
Still, a birth in 1867 is an interesting choice for Eliza Underwood. All early-life documentation up until 1910 reports a birth in 1866. (The 1900 census even points at Oct 1865.) I suppose LQ has gone for the conservative option: going with Mrs Underwood's claim.
Yes, it's a very strange decision. If it had been just one early life census record supporting 1866, I would understand, but the fact that both the 1870 and 1880 censuses do so in my opinion makes it significantly more likely that she was born in 1866 than in 1867.
26/10/2023 9:01 pm
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
26/10/2023 9:13 pm
Eliza is one of the “early” cases that I personally had been hoping to see validated for some time.
Its fantastic to see her deserved position now recognised as a prior WOPOAT, but slightly disappointing that 114+ was not the outcome.
26/10/2023 9:30 pm
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
Emma Tillman's earliest record at least states her year and month of birth, which is stronger evidence than just age alone. I'm not necessarily against revalidating her at 113, however.
Profile picture: Marita Camacho Quirós (1911-Present)
28/10/2023 9:17 am
The other interesting point about the 1867 birthdate validated for Eliza Underwood, along with the recent Anna Murphy validation, is that it provides a third 113+ year old, for a year this early.
Until very recently there had not been more than one 113 year old for any year prior to 1873, when four occurred making 1873 an absolute standout year for 113+ cases.
Now, six years earlier we have a year that almost matches with all 3 validated cases also older than 113.5.
Marco reacted
28/10/2023 1:33 pm
@chrisr I think that the most interesting thing about this trio is that they all surpassed Delina Filkins age and died in reverse order. At the time Anna Murphy was the oldest validated person to ever have died, then it was Fannie Thomas and lastly Eliza Underwood.
Topic starter
01/11/2023 4:28 am
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
Emma Tillman's earliest record at least states her year and month of birth, which is stronger evidence than just age alone. I'm not necessarily against revalidating her at 113, however.
I find this mindset (and the one that led to Underwood being validated as 113) to be deeply unscientific. If we are going to ignore multiple early-life documents, what is even the point anymore? At that point it's not evidence-based anymore.
01/11/2023 4:52 am
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
Emma Tillman's earliest record at least states her year and month of birth, which is stronger evidence than just age alone. I'm not necessarily against revalidating her at 113, however.
I find this mindset (and the one that led to Underwood being validated as 113) to be deeply unscientific. If we are going to ignore multiple early-life documents, what is even the point anymore? At that point it's not evidence-based anymore.
When we don't have enough evidence to conclusively prove a claim's exact age beyond a reasonable doubt, it's sometimes best to be conservative, especially with a case as significant as Eliza Underwood's. I find Tillman's evidence to be more convincing due to her year and month of birth being listed in her earliest document, but Underwood's census matches from her early life only lists year of birth, which has shown time and time again to frequently be inaccurate when compared with documents that list an exact date, such as a birth or baptismal records. Take the recently validated case of Ernest Peronneau - his 1910 census match supports him being a year younger than claimed, but his birth record proves he was born in 1902 like he claimed.
Underwood's 1900 census listing a completely different month of birth only further complicates her case, since it brings into question whether she actually knew her actual date of birth, or if she just gave a placeholder date on her Social Security application and went with that for the rest of her life. It's best not to have cases with so much uncertainty being ranked precisely in the top 100 oldest people, since it would be presuming a lot about her exact age.
The fact that she realistically could have been 114 at the time of her death is why an entire section is dedicated to discussing this possibility on her profile, so it's not like we're completely disregarding it.
Profile picture: Marita Camacho Quirós (1911-Present)
ChrisR and Sailor Haumea reacted
Topic starter
01/11/2023 4:58 am
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
Emma Tillman's earliest record at least states her year and month of birth, which is stronger evidence than just age alone. I'm not necessarily against revalidating her at 113, however.
I find this mindset (and the one that led to Underwood being validated as 113) to be deeply unscientific. If we are going to ignore multiple early-life documents, what is even the point anymore? At that point it's not evidence-based anymore.
When we don't have enough evidence to conclusively prove a claim's exact age beyond a reasonable doubt, it's sometimes best to be conservative, especially with a case as significant as Eliza Underwood's. I find Tillman's evidence to be more convincing due to her year and month of birth being listed in her earliest document, but Underwood's census matches from her early life only lists year of birth, which has shown time and time again to frequently be inaccurate when compared with documents that list an exact date, such as a birth or baptismal records. Take the recently validated case of Ernest Peronneau - his 1910 census match supports him being a year younger than claimed, but his birth record proves he was born in 1902 like he claimed.
Underwood's 1900 census listing a completely different month of birth only further complicates her case, since it brings into question whether she actually knew her actual date of birth, or if she just gave a placeholder date on her Social Security application and went with that for the rest of her life. It's best not to have cases with so much uncertainty being ranked precisely in the top 100 oldest people, since it would be presuming a lot about her exact age.
The fact that she realistically could have been 114 at the time of her death is why an entire section is dedicated to discussing this possibility on her profile, so it's not like we're completely disregarding it.
I could understand this perspective if it had only been the 1870 census supporting her being 114, but the fact that both the 1870 and 1880 censuses both do so makes this position much less tenable in my opinion.
01/11/2023 8:34 am
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
Emma Tillman's earliest record at least states her year and month of birth, which is stronger evidence than just age alone. I'm not necessarily against revalidating her at 113, however.
I find this mindset (and the one that led to Underwood being validated as 113) to be deeply unscientific. If we are going to ignore multiple early-life documents, what is even the point anymore? At that point it's not evidence-based anymore.
When we don't have enough evidence to conclusively prove a claim's exact age beyond a reasonable doubt, it's sometimes best to be conservative, especially with a case as significant as Eliza Underwood's. I find Tillman's evidence to be more convincing due to her year and month of birth being listed in her earliest document, but Underwood's census matches from her early life only lists year of birth, which has shown time and time again to frequently be inaccurate when compared with documents that list an exact date, such as a birth or baptismal records. Take the recently validated case of Ernest Peronneau - his 1910 census match supports him being a year younger than claimed, but his birth record proves he was born in 1902 like he claimed.
Underwood's 1900 census listing a completely different month of birth only further complicates her case, since it brings into question whether she actually knew her actual date of birth, or if she just gave a placeholder date on her Social Security application and went with that for the rest of her life. It's best not to have cases with so much uncertainty being ranked precisely in the top 100 oldest people, since it would be presuming a lot about her exact age.
The fact that she realistically could have been 114 at the time of her death is why an entire section is dedicated to discussing this possibility on her profile, so it's not like we're completely disregarding it.
I could understand this perspective if it had only been the 1870 census supporting her being 114, but the fact that both the 1870 and 1880 censuses both do so makes this position much less tenable in my opinion.
I believe that this case will have another resolution when validated by other organizations. Will that one be more correct? Hard to say. I may be old-school and by the book when validating SCs and the praxis has always been two early-life documents supporting a higher age for that to be recognized as the final age. But it won’t always necessary be accurate. Some people that have been validated as older using that system were probably younger and vice versa. That is why census records are problematic. Even baptismal and birth records are not always correct, or are they correct and the person just didn’t know the exact day they were born? Ettie Mae Greene's birth record supports her being 11 days younger than claimed, Myrtle Dorsey's record has her as two days older. That’s why age validation is something of a "current best estimate" that may need to be adjusted in the future.
What we can all agree on however is that she was the oldest known living person at the time, and not Fannie Thomas who has been one of the longest standing recognized WOLPs.
ChrisR and Sailor Haumea reacted
01/11/2023 10:33 am
Fannie Thomas actually loses the titles of the WOPOAT at that time, holder of the WOP title and also the oldest person born in 1867.
diego reacted
01/11/2023 9:54 pm
Having read the Longeviquest article, it states the case for the decision made and both acknowledges and respects the potential other birth outcomes.
It remains to be seen what perspectives other validation entities take.
Whilst the chances may be low one can only hope that some additional form of definitive evidence turns up at some stage.
diego reacted
09/04/2024 7:18 am
For reasons I won’t go into, it’s good to see a second formal opinion now exists, on the validated age of Delphia Welford.
Aquanaut reacted
09/04/2024 4:51 pm
@chrisr John I’d take it as if Delphia just got validated. I take the GRG validations with a pinch of salt. Recently they validated a Mexican-American woman aged almost 114, even though for our team, it took less than hour to realize she was an identity swapping case.
10/04/2024 1:16 am
identity swapping case.
Is the identity swap candidate a sibling, cousin, or someone else?
12/04/2024 2:06 am
Consider that Emma Tillman also claimed to be a year younger but was validated as born in 1892 based on the 1900 and 1910 census. The rest of her documentation is inconsistent. Her family only claimed 1892 upon realizing what the early-life documentation said. A conservative approach might be suitable for her as well.
Emma Tillman's earliest record at least states her year and month of birth, which is stronger evidence than just age alone. I'm not necessarily against revalidating her at 113, however.
I find this mindset (and the one that led to Underwood being validated as 113) to be deeply unscientific. If we are going to ignore multiple early-life documents, what is even the point anymore? At that point it's not evidence-based anymore.
When we don't have enough evidence to conclusively prove a claim's exact age beyond a reasonable doubt, it's sometimes best to be conservative, especially with a case as significant as Eliza Underwood's. I find Tillman's evidence to be more convincing due to her year and month of birth being listed in her earliest document, but Underwood's census matches from her early life only lists year of birth, which has shown time and time again to frequently be inaccurate when compared with documents that list an exact date, such as a birth or baptismal records. Take the recently validated case of Ernest Peronneau - his 1910 census match supports him being a year younger than claimed, but his birth record proves he was born in 1902 like he claimed.
Underwood's 1900 census listing a completely different month of birth only further complicates her case, since it brings into question whether she actually knew her actual date of birth, or if she just gave a placeholder date on her Social Security application and went with that for the rest of her life. It's best not to have cases with so much uncertainty being ranked precisely in the top 100 oldest people, since it would be presuming a lot about her exact age.
The fact that she realistically could have been 114 at the time of her death is why an entire section is dedicated to discussing this possibility on her profile, so it's not like we're completely disregarding it.
FWIW, Ernest Peronneau's 1902 birth record incorrectly (likely due to a typo) gives his mother's maiden name (Florence *James* instead of Florence *Spencer*), but I and Fish have searched for plausible candidates for an identity switch for Ernest's parents and there were only one James and Florence Per-something living in Charleston, South Carolina in both 1900 and 1910. So, the odds of an identity switch were pretty low. We were also able to find birth records for all but one of Ernest's siblings (at least for those born before 1910; I didn't aggressively check the ones born later because they were less relevant to verifying Ernest) and based on the total number of children that Ernest's mother had in 1910, all of the children that she had are accounted for (Ernest's elder brother James Peronneau, born in 1898, died in 1909). In fact, there is even an extra child in 1910 relative to what was claimed, which, together with her absence on the Peronneau family's 1900 US Census entry, suggests that Ethel Peronneau might have been adopted (she was already born in 1900 but only living with the Peronneau family in 1910, not in 1900). The fact that all of the Peronneau siblings (at least those born before 1910) are accounted for on the 1910 US Census (James Peronneau's 1909 death record is an almost perfect match with his 1898 birth record and his 1900 US Census entry), the fact that there are no plausible candidates for an identity switch for Ernest Peronneau's parents, the fact that his parents lived in the same area (Charleston, South Carolina) between at least 1898 and at least 1910, and the fact that Ernest Peronneau claimed almost the same birth date for at least 70+ years (his WWII draft card gives March 6, 1903; his birth record gives March 7, 1902; he claimed March 6, 1902 very late in his life) does suggest that the 1902 birth record is indeed for him, in spite of his mother's maiden name being accidentally misspelled on it. We simply couldn't find any marriage or birth records for any other children for a James Peronneau and a Florence James (as opposed to a Florence Spencer), and given just how rare the names James Peronneau and Florence are, we strongly suspect that any kind of identity switch is unlikely, especially for it to be in the very same area while the original James and Florence Peronneau were still alive.
12/04/2024 2:08 am
In summation, there simply isn't any other evidence that anyone named Florence James (as opposed to Florence Spencer) ever married or ever had any kids or any kind of sexual relationship with anyone names James Peronneau, especially in Charleston, South Carolina.
12/04/2024 2:10 am
Recent validations, accepted on 9 and 25 October 2023:
Eliza Underwood, USA, 15 Mar 1867 - 27 Jan 1981, 113 years and 318 days. Former World's Oldest Person, surpassing the lifespan of Fannie Thomas. Oldest validated person ever to have died at the time of her death. Biography.
Tome Tanaka, JPN, 28 Oct 1912 - Present, 110+ years. Biography.
I must say that I am puzzled by the logic behind validating James Holt as born in 1865 but Eliza Underwood as born in 1867 - it feels like inconsistent use of census records to revise an age upwards.
James Holt actually claimed to be born in 1865, though.
I thought that he claimed birth in 1866? My mistake.
In his obituary, his age is given as age 111, which implies an 1865 birth year for him. It might even explicitly say that he was born in December 1865.
12/04/2024 2:21 am
@chrisr John I’d take it as if Delphia just got validated. I take the GRG validations with a pinch of salt. Recently they validated a Mexican-American woman aged almost 114, even though for our team, it took less than hour to realize she was an identity swapping case.
What specifically is the smoking gun evidence that Secundina is an identity swap case? I and Fish have aggressively looked for such evidence but couldn't find anything decisive. Naturally giving birth at 52 to one's last child is borderline suspicious but not impossible (the previous last child was born six years earlier than that, I think, at age 46?). Massively deflating one's age in order to marry a much younger man is not impossible either, especially if one's marriage got delayed for a long time due to the Mexican Revolution, which lasted for slightly over a decade.
Fish and I also checked the paper trails of all of Secundina's sisters and all of them other than Carolina (who was less than two years younger than Secundina) have paper trails that extend beyond Secundina's 1921 marriage. So, they could not have stolen her identity. And what exactly would be the incentive for Carolina to add an extra couple of years to her age by swapping identities with Secundina, and then also deflating her age by slightly over a decade for over 80 years, to boot?
If there was an identity swap, then it would need to be either a cousin or someone else who did it, but the question is who exactly, and where exactly is the smoking gun evidence of an identity swap?
12/04/2024 2:23 am
@coyote77 are you referring to Secundina Camarena?
He probably is, but I honestly do wonder exactly what kind of smoking gun evidence he has for the identity switch hypothesis that we're unaware of. People such as myself, who shared Secundina's case with Fish, have previously seriously considered the identity swap hypothesis (together with Fish, of course) but concluded that it is unlikely that it would have been one of her sisters (see my explanation posted above here), so it would need to be either a cousin, someone else, or no identity swap at all.
12/04/2024 2:28 am
For reasons I won’t go into, it’s good to see a second formal opinion now exists, on the validated age of Delphia Welford.
If you would have taken a long look at Jimmy's PDF file on Delphia, you'd have concluded that there is no reason to doubt an extraordinarily high age for her. Significant age deflation (in the range of 4-10 years) was widespread in her family (siblings and son) and after her 1885 and 1892 school census entries were found, the younger sibling identity switch hypothesis was conclusively ruled out for her. There is some uncertainty about where she was born (one 1880 US Census entry says Mississippi and one says Tennessee, both 1880 Mississippi state census entries say Mississippi, as does her obituary), but she nevertheless has an extremely solid paper trail of over 112 years in her favor. Her family has also been aggressively researched over the decades that they lived and from this research it's very clear that she didn't swap identities with anyone else.
12/04/2024 2:29 am
As a side note, though, if it was up to me, I'd verify Delphia as 116, not 117, just to be on the safe side, like with Eliza Underwood. Her earliest documentation from 1880 does not unequivocally support a final age of 117 for her. 3 documents from 1880 give an age of 5 for her and 1 document from 1880 gives an age of 4 for her.
12/04/2024 2:34 am
Recent validations, accepted on 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 March 2024:
Randolph Davis, USA, 15 Oct 1873 - 15 Dec 1984, 111 years and 61 days.
Excellent! What's sad, though, is that we couldn't find a WWI draft card for him. Was this because he barely declared himself to be too old for the draft, or for some other reason, we just don't know. I do wonder if such a draft card existed and contained a different birth date or even birth month for him, then he would have been validated with a different birth date. What do you think? (Of course, even a WWI draft card would have been 45 years or so after his birth, so it wouldn't have been the most reliable source for his birth date.)
For some reason, Randolph Davis doesn't have a 1920 US Census entry either. At least we couldn't find one. I wonder if this fact and him not having a WWI draft card are somehow related, or just a coincidence?
12/04/2024 2:35 am
Delphia Welford (USA, 9 Sep 1875 - 14 Nov 1992, 117) validated by LQ on 28 Feb 2024.
Vincent Dransfield (USA, 28 Mar 1914 - Present, 110) validated by LQ on 6 Apr 2024.
Very excited to see these two! It's great that we have a previously unvalidated SC from LQ who was 117, and Vincent who is a 110 year old man, that's breaking all stereotypes. Congrats
Here's hoping that Vincent will break Walter's record in slightly over 4.5 years' time! But I've unfortunately learned not to be too optimistic. Still, Vincent is probably out best chance for this in a while. Might become the first US-born white man since Walter to live past his 112th birthday in two years' time!
Page 1 / 2
Next
