Posted by: @marco

↑

Agnes Sultan, SWE-USA, 15 Dec 1889 - 4 Sept 2000, 110 years and 264 days.

Thankfully for Agnes Sultan we have a birth record that confirms a birth in 1889 for her since the 1900 US Census lists her as being born in December 1890. Of course, the 1900 US Census can also occasionally have an error in it. Delvina Dahlheimer's 1900 US Census listed her as born in December 1889 and as age 10, but her 1895 Minnesota state census listed her as age 6, thus implying a December 1888 birth for her. Delvina Dahlheimer herself claimed to have been born in December 1888 later on in her life.

Posted by: @charlesm09

↑

Father’s side:

Grandmother: May 10, 1934-May 23, 1999 (aged 65) died of cancer

Grandfather: September 17, 1932-Present (alive at 90)

FMM: April 5, 1910-May 15, 1990 (aged 80)

FMF: September 17 (yes my dad's mom married someone with the same birthday as her dad!), 1907-January 23, 1995 (aged 87)

FFM: May 1, 1899-February 15, 1981 (aged 81)

FFF: 1896-1956 (aged 59) - dates not remembered, but I remember that he died before his 60th birthday.

 

Mother’s side:

Grandmother: August 31, 1938-Present (alive at 84)

Grandfather: July 7, 1932-January 23, 1993 (aged 60) died of cancer

MMM: September 23, 1913-May 28, 2002 (aged 88)

MMF: December 24, 1904-February 18, 2003 (aged 98)

MFM: February 6, 1905-December 16, 1997 (aged 92)

MFF: c. 1906-late 1970s (aged ~71)

Charles, I suspect that you have at least 50% odds of reaching the 22nd century! Consider yourself lucky! My own odds of doing this are almost zero! 🙁 (Well, without a successful cryogenic preservation and eventual future revival, that is! ;))

Has LQ considered verifying more 1800s-born cases? Oscar recently found an 1896 school census entry for Charles Edward Graves (1888-1999) that lists him as age 17 (certainly a typo and meant to say age 7, considering that he's not listed together with his siblings in the 1892 school census for their Mississippi county, which implies that he was younger than five years old in 1892), which should be enough to make him verified since it's within the 20-year-window. (A 1900 US Census entry unfortunately doesn't exist for either him or his family, perhaps due to the chance that they were out of town back then, but this should be irrelevant if this 1896 school census entry is accepted in place of this.)

Mr. Graves's case is very solid since he got married in 1908 (at age 19) and had his first child in early 1909 (age 20). And Mr. Graves's younger brother Warren Arthur was born in late 1890, so Mr. Graves could not have been much younger than his claimed age.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Has LQ considered verifying more 1800s-born cases?

If you google LQ, you'll come across an LQ test site which already shows some validated LAS- & LQ-cases from the 1800s (such as an Argentinian woman born in 1857, and a Brazilian woman born in 1867).

Posted by: @marco

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Has LQ considered verifying more 1800s-born cases?

 

If you google LQ, you'll come across an LQ test site which already shows some validated LAS- & LQ-cases from the 1800s (such as an Argentinian woman born in 1857, and a Brazilian woman born in 1867).

 

Do you mean this website or some other website?

https://longevi.quest/?password-protected=login&redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Flongevi.quest%2Fabout-us%2F

I did do a Google search for LongevityQuest and more than once but I couldn't find anything else other than a Twitter account for them.

Posted by: @sonicbox

↑

Herbert Wolding is the founder of a Wisconsin-based trucking company.

Is he the oldest (verified) company founder ever or has there ever been a (verified or at least verifiable) company founder who was older than him?

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @marco

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Has LQ considered verifying more 1800s-born cases?

 

If you google LQ, you'll come across an LQ test site which already shows some validated LAS- & LQ-cases from the 1800s (such as an Argentinian woman born in 1857, and a Brazilian woman born in 1867).

 

Do you mean this website or some other website?

https://longevi.quest/?password-protected=login&redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Flongevi.quest%2Fabout-us%2F

I did do a Google search for LongevityQuest and more than once but I couldn't find anything else other than a Twitter account for them.

 

Never mind; I found it:

https://www.longeviquest.com/

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Do you mean this website or some other website?

https://longevi.quest/?password-protected=login&redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Flongevi.quest%2Fabout-us%2F

I meant that website, but it seems that by now it's password-protected.

@Marco I don't really have all that much access to my e-mail right now. However, I know of some evidence for a couple of additional European-born SC cases. Would it be OK for me to post this evidence here?

@futurist 

you can mail documentation to [email protected] , and I will make sure to send you a reply today or tomorrow. 🙂

EDIT: oh wait, only properly reading your post now. How about you send them to me via a PM?

Posted by: @marco

↑

@futurist 

you can mail documentation to [email protected] , and I will make sure to send you a reply today or tomorrow. 🙂

EDIT: oh wait, only properly reading your post now. How about you send them to me via a PM?

I don't have access to the PM function on this forum:

https://globalsupercentenarianforum.com/index.php/community/memberintro/hello-from-southern-california/#post-8131

So, I'll just post the relevant research here, if you don't mind:

Here is a 1950 immigration record for Rudolf Buxcel (1908-2019; listed as age 42 here):

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:ZDQ8-7X6Z

This should be enough to make him low-level verified, right?

We know that it's for him because his wife Ida (1914-2001; listed as age 36 here) has an immigration record from the same time:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:ZDQ8-7XN2

If you'll look at the graves for them, you'll see that the ages/birth years match perfectly:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/179366541/rudolf-buxcel

There is also Herbert Engel (1907-2018):

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

Here is a 1923 immigration record for him (age 16):

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JN2Q-PJZ

1930 US Census entry (age 23):

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XQTB-SR8

And 1950 US Census entry (age 43):

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6FSL-VJQV

This should be enough to make his case mid-level verified, right? There's a document from within the 20-year-window, but it doesn't list his full date of birth.

There's also Rosa Blaser Clark (1887-1998):

https://the110club.com/rosa-clark-1887-1998-ch-us-mt-t8161.html?sid=27b98addaf2c3522a74fbfcb80d84da1

But for her, we still need a record/document from within the 20-year-window, which I strongly suspect can and will be found in Switzerland. Still, I suppose that she can already be marked as a low-level verified case, right? We already have a lot of documentation for her from 1909 onwards, after all.

@futurist Please make sure not to post any privacy-sensitive information for European(-born) (living) supercentenarians, considering the relatively new laws in play there.

Posted by: @admin

↑

@futurist Please make sure not to post any privacy-sensitive information for European(-born) (living) supercentenarians, considering the relatively new laws in play there.

OK. That said, though, what about for deceased European(-born) supercentenarians? Because the documentation that I posted above was all for deceased supercentenarians, not for living ones.

It's not a violation of the GDPR to discuss and post information about deceased individuals. You have to be careful regarding living people however.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I don't have access to the PM function on this forum:

https://globalsupercentenarianforum.com/index.php/community/memberintro/hello-from-southern-california/#post-8131

So, I'll just post the relevant research here, if you don't mind:

[links to documents]

Thanks for these links. Our strategy is to first see if we can validate SCs with at a high level validation, so once we will properly research these men and this woman, we'll use these links/docs as a starting point.

Posted by: @admin

↑

Hi, Futurist, and welcome to the forum!

 

After deliberation with my moderators, I've decided that we are going to have a cautious approach with you, so I have created a new usergroup for you - just because we think that is best for both us and you. This means you won't be allowed access to PMs, and you will be limited to only writing posts / responding to topics. Let's first see if you can show some improved, mature behaviour in your posts that also shows growth in self-awareness and self-reflection.

Also, I am strongly urging you to read the rules of this forum attentively, see here. Especially this sentence, "please show respect towards other members and treat them the way you wish to be treated," is applicable to you - be aware of boundaries (so don't ask private, invasive questions).

I realise our decision might seem unfair to you, but we have to consider the integrity of this forum.

Thank you. I will try my best to follow this forum's rules, including avoiding asking forumers personal questions. Honestly, I am much more interested in discussing SCs than I am in asking forumers personal questions anyway. I don't want to get in trouble here, and I don't want to make anyone else here uncomfortable, so Yeah.

Also, to clarify: I'm not allowed to create new threads on here, right? At least not yet. If so, then I will manage. I'm gladly willing to stay here with limited rights than not to be here at all. That's certainly much better for me.

As a side note, maybe I shouldn't be asking this, but do you know which PMs specifically got me banned from the 110 Club? Or would that be unacceptable for me to ask since that would involve compromising other people's privacy? If so, then forget that I asked anything. I was simply curious about this. I don't know just how much access you have to the inner workings of the 110 Club.

But Yeah, as I said, I'm not very eager to use PMs here. I'm much more interested in making posts. I do wish that I could create topics since there are some SCs that I want to discuss and/or verify who deserve their own threads, but I am willing to wait. Thanks again for letting me stay here! 🙂

To clarify: I've received some input from other members with regard to Futurist (i.e. to you, OP), so for the time being I've restricted your access to the Supercentenarian part of this forum. In the next 24 hours, after more review (i.e. input from more members), I will decide whether you can stay on this forum.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Thank you. I will try my best to follow this forum's rules, including avoiding asking forumers personal questions. Honestly, I am much more interested in discussing SCs than I am in asking forumers personal questions anyway. I don't want to get in trouble here, and I don't want to make anyone else here uncomfortable, so Yeah.

Also, to clarify: I'm not allowed to create new threads on here, right? At least not yet. If so, then I will manage. I'm gladly willing to stay here with limited rights than not to be here at all. That's certainly much better for me.

As a side note, maybe I shouldn't be asking this, but do you know which PMs specifically got me banned from the 110 Club? Or would that be unacceptable for me to ask since that would involve compromising other people's privacy? If so, then forget that I asked anything. I was simply curious about this. I don't know just how much access you have to the inner workings of the 110 Club.

But Yeah, as I said, I'm not very eager to use PMs here. I'm much more interested in making posts. I do wish that I could create topics since there are some SCs that I want to discuss and/or verify who deserve their own threads, but I am willing to wait. Thanks again for letting me stay here! 🙂

1. No, you cannot (yet) create threads here - and I can't give an indication as to when you possibly could.

2. I don't have access to the inner workings of the 110 Club.

Posted by: @record_116

↑

Honestly, looking at the above comment alone, or seeing that he posted 46 times in just about day of time, it doesn't seem like he'll be able to control his urge/impulses, I guess.

 

We have noticed - and the posts made are posts already seen/made on the 110 Club. It might be wise for Futurist to realise that we've seen those posts before, meaning it would suit him if he tried to let go of his unanswered questions / unvalidated supercentenarians, and to focus on the here and now.

I think Futurist deserves an opportunity. It is true that he often tends to post off-topic comments or he asks strange questions. Anyway, I have to admit that he also posts interesting comments, and I like how well he writes in english.

So, I think the best option is, as you have done already, to put some limits to him. Just to propose some ideas, I think he couldn't post more tan 10 posts per day or not mentioning or talking about off-topic/strange subjects (cryonics...).

Posted by: @admin

↑

Posted by: @record_116

↑

Honestly, looking at the above comment alone, or seeing that he posted 46 times in just about day of time, it doesn't seem like he'll be able to control his urge/impulses, I guess.

 

We have noticed - and the posts made are posts already seen/made on the 110 Club. It might be wise for Futurist to realise that we've seen those posts before, meaning it would suit him if he tried to let go of his unanswered questions / unvalidated supercentenarians, and to focus on the here and now.

 

To elaborate: What specifically should I focus on? Currently living SCs? Or something else? I just want to clarify this part in order to avoid any confusion.

I saw nothing wrong with the posts of @futurist, I found very interesting the subjects raised by him

↑

To elaborate: What specifically should I focus on? Currently living SCs? Or something else? I just want to clarify this part in order to avoid any confusion.

1. On logging in when you are posting. 😉  [But I have also reset posting rights for guests, so from now on guests should only be able to post in the "registration problems" thread.]

2. On not firing question after question after question if you don't immediately get an answer.

3. On not digging up old threads that people hadn't replied to for a while, especially when you realise that the questions you ask will most likely not be answered publicly (because of privacy) or at all (because if people had known, the information would already have been shared).

So, instead, focus - once more - on the here and now: what topics have been visited by / received posts from a fair number of members in the past four weeks?

Posted by: @admin

↑

↑

To elaborate: What specifically should I focus on? Currently living SCs? Or something else? I just want to clarify this part in order to avoid any confusion.

 

1. On logging in when you are posting. 😉  [But I have also reset posting rights for guests, so from now on guests should only be able to post in the "registration problems" thread.]

2. On not firing question after question after question if you don't immediately get an answer.

3. On not digging up old threads that people hadn't replied to for a while, especially when you realise that the questions you ask will most likely not be answered publicly (because of privacy) or at all (because if people had known, the information would already have been shared).

 

So, instead, focus - once more - on the here and now: what topics have been visited by / received posts from a fair number of members in the past four weeks?

 

Fair enough. I will do my best in regards to this.

That said, though, I do want to make a comment: I don't think that my post in the Park Fountain Heard (1876?/1882?-1994) thread was a bad one. Rather, I think that it was quite good for me to post books that contain school census results for his county for the late 19th century in the event that anyone here will ever be interested in trying to get access to these books, similar to how Oscar was able to get access to books containing the school census entries for Charles Edward Graves (1888-1999) for 1892 and 1896, thus allowing the necessary documentation for his case to be gathered so that his age can finally be set on track to get verified. So, I don't think that having me post on old topics was always harmful/not beneficial. However, I will nevertheless defer to your judgment in regards to this because I simply don't want trouble.

Is there any chance at all for me to post research on new SC cases (and/or SC claims) here, in this very thread? Or would that just be a distraction?

BTW, I found Aaron Bazemore's marriage certificate for his second marriage from 1911:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F89T-JQN

Sort of random, but still useful for helping to further verify his case.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Fair enough. I will do my best in regards to this.

To help you / present you with a manual, here's a couple of tips based on your posting habits of the last couple of days:

1. Please only quote the relevant part of a post you are referring to (such as I have done here), as most members will be browsing on their smartphones - and it's a lot of scrolling to do if lengthy posts or posts with long, statistical lists are quoted. Remember, this is in one of the ten rules of the forum that I referred you to. Memorise the rules.

2. Here and here are examples of posts that are unnecessary, because they don't deal with the here and now, or go off-topic. To elaborate:

The first example is this quote,

One wonders just how long Maria Redaelli would have lived if it wasn't for her fatal fall. I think that her odds of living to age 115+ were very good, maybe even to age 116+.

Except, she didn't. She died. So let go of your need to continue contemplating about "what could have been," but instead focus on what she did achieve - or what other SCs did achieve, for that matter. No need to share an alternative reality.

The second example is this quote,

Pretty cool that Sweden's OLM is Jewish even though Jews are, what, 0.1% of the total Swedish population? For that matter, Canada's OLM is Jewish as well, though Jews are a much larger percentage of the overall Canadian population (1%) than they are in Sweden. Though 1% still isn't that much.

I wonder if Jews have a genetic longevity advantage over non-Jews. Could be an interesting hypothesis to test if not too controversial. We previously had two Jewish WOLM, after all. And George Feldman just barely missed out on becoming the US's OLM in December 2018. He needed to live less than one additional month for him to get this title.

The topic/thread is not about Jews, it's about the 10 oldest living men in Sweden. I know you're keen to discuss Jewish SCs because of your own ancestry, but don't dwell or don't venture into unnecessary side-alleys. Once more, stick in the here and the now. If you wish to discuss Jewish SCs, then post about those in the relevant thread. And if that thread doesn't exist, then please remember to stay on topic in the other threads. (To answer your question: the topic doesn't yet exist, so accept that for the time being you can't discuss Jewish SCs in other topics.)

I'm hoping that you're seeing my/our point, and I am also expecting improved posts (which will automatically prevent you from cluttering this forum with unnecessary information unrelated to the topic at hand). If I don't see improved behaviour, I will need to start handing out warnings.

Actually, come to think of it, I've created this topic (click!), so it's safe for you to ask specific questions. I will also redirect posts there if they venture off-topic in other topics. 🙃 

Posted by: @few

↑

La multi ani, Donna Viorica Hogaş ! 🌻 

Happy 108th birthday, Ms. Viorica !

Seconded! 🙂

Are Romanian 1930 census records publicly available for searching anywhere (on any website(s))? Such a record would be within the 20-year-window for her in the hypothetical event that we won't be able to find a birth record and/or a baptismal record for her.

Posted by: @marco

↑

1. Gerald Gilman, USA, 110, 30 Apr. 1893

There's actually a chance that Gerald Gilman could have been a year older. A birth record was found for April 30, 1892 for a child of his parents with the name Mazel G. and listed as female. You might think that this would be an older sibling of Gerald's, but his parents said in both 1900 and 1910 and that only had one child in total (as in, ever) and, if so, then there should be a separate birth record somewhere for Gerald himself, but there isn't. Which makes me wonder if he was originally named Mazel Gerald Gilman, with his sex being mistakenly registered as female since Mazel is apparently more often a female name than a male name (though having it be a male name is not unheard of) and with his name being changed to Gerald Hessler Gilman later on, possibly because Mazel is too rare of a name. Of course, all of this is just a hypothesis. We know that Gerald Gilman was at least 110 years old at the time of his death since his 1900 US Census lists him as being born in May 1893. (His World War I draft registration card lists him as being born on April 30, 1893, as he claimed.)