Global Supercentenarian Forum
The Supercentenarian World
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
