When it comes to Gerald Gilman (1892/1893-2004), he's validated as born in 1893, and 1893 is supposed by his 1900 US Census and all subsequent documents. However, there is a birth record for a Mazel G. Gilman, female, with Gerald's exact date of birth, but only for 1892. Gerald Gilman's parents are listed as having 1 child in total and 1 living child in both the 1900 and 1910 US Censuses.

I checked and Mazel can be used as a very rare male name as well. Just try doing a search for it on Find-A-Grave, for instance. Maybe he was initially named Mazel Gerald and switched to Gerald by 1900 due to Mazel's sheer rarity? And that the F (for female) on his birth record is simply a typo/mistake?

If Gerald Gilman's parents had an extra child who was either stillborn or died at birth, then surely a death record would exist for this extra child and surely a separate birth record would then exist for Gerald himself from the following year, and yet we see neither of these two things! Which suggests that Mazel G. Gilman really was Gerald and that the F on his birth record is indeed a typo.

But if his birth record mistakenly got his sex wrong, could it have also mistakenly got his year of birth wrong? Can 1893 indeed be correct even though the birth record says 1892? FWIW, I don't think that the birth record itself is specifically from 1892, but merely from the early 1890s--though this can be checked.

What do you think, @Fish @Mendocino? Should the GRG and LQ upgrade Gerald Gilman's validated age by a year? From 110y,246d to 111y,246d?

@futurist The birth record appears to be a birth index and it doesn't seem likely that it's from 1893 to me. 

It's clearly marked that the 30 Apr date is in the 1892 year, but perhaps they made a mistake? Possible, but in the surrounding pages, there is not a single example of any birth recorded past March 1893 - only January - March 1893. I've noticed that often times these birth index books do not go on a calendar year, but at the top state they are recording births from say "May 1903-May 1904", which seems to be the case here. So unless when that child was born a year later in 1893, they decided to go back in the wrong page and record it there, it's not likely to me. 

So, his age should be upgraded by one year?

I'm curious as to how Elisabeth Kimoff (1904-2015) was validated by the GRG. Was a birth, baptismal, and/or immigration record found for her? Because her 1926 marriage record is just outside of the 20-year-window for her.

@futurist they probably didn't find anything at all and just validated her anyways. That's how it's worked for a number of other cases.

If so (and I do hope that you're wrong in regards to this), then this would be quite scandalous! After all, validating a case without having anything for it within the 20-year-window should not be considered acceptable.

I actually did find something for her just now:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:68FW-2513?lang=en

It's a 1923 immigration record. Apparently the date is September 20, 1923, so it was before her birthday. So, age 16 implies a birth year of 1906 for her, not 1907. However, the problem is that a birth year of 1906 for her would imply a final age of 108 for her, not 110 (birth year 1904) like she claimed.

And her immigration record is the only document from within the 20-year-window that we have. Her marriage record is from 1926 and actually does support 1904 but would only be from within the 20-year-window if a 1906 birth year (final age 108) was used for her. If we go with a birth year of 1905 (final age 109) or 1904 (final age 110), then her 1926 marriage reecord would NOT be within the 20-year-window for her.

And of course her 1923 immigration record is her earliest document, unless the GRG has found something even earlier for her from Macedonia.

If you're curious as to how I know it's her, Andon is her father's name (Slavic countries have patronymics) and the name of the village of her birth matches:

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

Anyway, it looks like I have now provisionally debunked this woman's case. I say provisionally because maybe she really was born in 1904. It's just a matter of whether this can actually be proven.

@futurist they have validated many cases without a marriage document, they listed cases like Diolinda Maria da Conceicao as validated for months despite lacking any documents, they validated a debunked case A.R.O, validated several 90 year olds only to later debunk them. It's all documented over the past year or so.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

If so (and I do hope that you're wrong in regards to this), then this would be quite scandalous! After all, validating a case without having anything for it within the 20-year-window should not be considered acceptable.

At this point, you surely must be aware of what the GRG has been doing over the last year, right? There are dozens of cases on their website that were randomly added without ANY documentation. How else do you think they managed to "validate" someone born in modern-day North Korea, or someone else who lived their entire life in Maldives?

@mendocino One of the most embarrassing examples to me is the case of Nannie Brown-Turner: how in the world do you validate a 93-year old as 111. It took me 2 minutes to find her 1929 birth record.

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

If so (and I do hope that you're wrong in regards to this), then this would be quite scandalous! After all, validating a case without having anything for it within the 20-year-window should not be considered acceptable.

At this point, you surely must be aware of what the GRG has been doing over the last year, right? There are dozens of cases on their website that were randomly added without ANY documentation. How else do you think they managed to "validate" someone born in modern-day North Korea, or someone else who lived their entire life in Maldives?

Which GRG-validated SC was born in North Korea? I can't find them on the GerWiki.

As for Maldives, it became a British protectorate in 1887, so in theory, documentation from there might exist. At least for some people.

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@mendocino One of the most embarrassing examples to me is the case of Nannie Brown-Turner: how in the world do you validate a 93-year old as 111. It took me 2 minutes to find her 1929 birth record.

Yep, that was a huge screw-up on their part!

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

If so (and I do hope that you're wrong in regards to this), then this would be quite scandalous! After all, validating a case without having anything for it within the 20-year-window should not be considered acceptable.

At this point, you surely must be aware of what the GRG has been doing over the last year, right? There are dozens of cases on their website that were randomly added without ANY documentation. How else do you think they managed to "validate" someone born in modern-day North Korea, or someone else who lived their entire life in Maldives?

Which GRG-validated SC was born in North Korea? I can't find them on the GerWiki.

As for Maldives, it became a British protectorate in 1887, so in theory, documentation from there might exist. At least for some people.

 

No, the point is, whether the documentation exists or not, it's blatantly obvious the GRG haven't relied on it or even bothered looking for it.

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

If so (and I do hope that you're wrong in regards to this), then this would be quite scandalous! After all, validating a case without having anything for it within the 20-year-window should not be considered acceptable.

At this point, you surely must be aware of what the GRG has been doing over the last year, right? There are dozens of cases on their website that were randomly added without ANY documentation. How else do you think they managed to "validate" someone born in modern-day North Korea, or someone else who lived their entire life in Maldives?

Which GRG-validated SC was born in North Korea? I can't find them on the GerWiki.

As for Maldives, it became a British protectorate in 1887, so in theory, documentation from there might exist. At least for some people.

 

No, the point is, whether the documentation exists or not, it's blatantly obvious the GRG haven't relied on it or even bothered looking for it.

 

Yes, this might be very true--and simultaneously very sad.

The GRG should prove us wrong in regards to this in the future.

As a side note, I find it interesting that not only can we not find an 1860 US Census entry for James Monroe King (1854-1967), but we also can't find an 1850 US Census entry for his family. In theory, this shouldn't be disqualifying because his 1870 US Census entry is still within the 20-year-window and we have a very good paper trail for him from after 1870, but the fact that we know so little about his family other than his brothers is not exactly encouraging, even though there is an understandable reason for it (specifically them running away from home very young due to the American Civil War, or at least so they said).

You will find no realiable documentary proof (or substance behind) a good number of their validations.

During discussions with Waclaw about the GRG’s place in the longevity world (at his request at the Longevity Conference and then after), I sent him some of the information which showed just how far from reality their validation of the NZ case of Ranganui Parewahawaha Leonard really is.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

You will find no realiable documentary proof (or substance behind) a good number of their validations.

During discussions with Waclaw about the GRG’s place in the longevity world (at his request at the Longevity Conference and then after), I sent him some of the information which showed just how far from reality their validation of the NZ case of Ranganui Parewahawaha Leonard really is.

Of course the validation has not been changed, so their credibility is impacted once again.

It says here that she's unvalidated?

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

Do you know what her true age was?

Posted by: @futurist

↑

When it comes to Gerald Gilman (1892/1893-2004), he's validated as born in 1893, and 1893 is supposed by his 1900 US Census and all subsequent documents. However, there is a birth record for a Mazel G. Gilman, female, with Gerald's exact date of birth, but only for 1892. Gerald Gilman's parents are listed as having 1 child in total and 1 living child in both the 1900 and 1910 US Censuses.

I checked and Mazel can be used as a very rare male name as well. Just try doing a search for it on Find-A-Grave, for instance. Maybe he was initially named Mazel Gerald and switched to Gerald by 1900 due to Mazel's sheer rarity? And that the F (for female) on his birth record is simply a typo/mistake?

If Gerald Gilman's parents had an extra child who was either stillborn or died at birth, then surely a death record would exist for this extra child and surely a separate birth record would then exist for Gerald himself from the following year, and yet we see neither of these two things! Which suggests that Mazel G. Gilman really was Gerald and that the F on his birth record is indeed a typo.

But if his birth record mistakenly got his sex wrong, could it have also mistakenly got his year of birth wrong? Can 1893 indeed be correct even though the birth record says 1892? FWIW, I don't think that the birth record itself is specifically from 1892, but merely from the early 1890s--though this can be checked.

What do you think, @Fish @Mendocino? Should the GRG and LQ upgrade Gerald Gilman's validated age by a year? From 110y,246d to 111y,246d?

I think that the issue here is that the people recording the birth might have simply assumed that Mazel is a female name because it's so rare and also because it might be used more for females. But it actually can be used as a name for males as well:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/50440331/mazel-melburn-merrill

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/176209300/mazel-ralph-penrod

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

You will find no realiable documentary proof (or substance behind) a good number of their validations.

During discussions with Waclaw about the GRG’s place in the longevity world (at his request at the Longevity Conference and then after), I sent him some of the information which showed just how far from reality their validation of the NZ case of Ranganui Parewahawaha Leonard really is.

Of course the validation has not been changed, so their credibility is impacted once again.

It says here that she's unvalidated?

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

Do you know what her true age was?

 

interesting that the validation has been undone by the GRG recently.

So I’ll withdraw my comments above and thank them for reconsidering this case.

The simple outcome is that there is no consistent evidence for a lifespan of 112 years: the most likely (possibility only) is that the lady who died was the daughter of the claimant and therefore likely mid 80s.

@chrisr She was only unvalidated sometime in February. She was listed as validated since last August, so for about six months.

Thanks Musicotic - yes … I believe your timeframe would be accurate.

At least they got there in the end.

BTW, speaking of debunkings, I'm curious as to just how exactly LAS debunked Secundina Camarena Nieves (1891?-2005), because I personally couldn't find any "smoking gun" to debunk her case, and neither could @Fish.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I actually did find something for her just now:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:68FW-2513?lang=en

It's a 1923 immigration record. Apparently the date is September 20, 1923, so it was before her birthday. So, age 16 implies a birth year of 1906 for her, not 1907. However, the problem is that a birth year of 1906 for her would imply a final age of 108 for her, not 110 (birth year 1904) like she claimed.

And her immigration record is the only document from within the 20-year-window that we have. Her marriage record is from 1926 and actually does support 1904 but would only be from within the 20-year-window if a 1906 birth year (final age 108) was used for her. If we go with a birth year of 1905 (final age 109) or 1904 (final age 110), then her 1926 marriage reecord would NOT be within the 20-year-window for her.

And of course her 1923 immigration record is her earliest document, unless the GRG has found something even earlier for her from Macedonia.

If you're curious as to how I know it's her, Andon is her father's name (Slavic countries have patronymics) and the name of the village of her birth matches:

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

Anyway, it looks like I have now provisionally debunked this woman's case. I say provisionally because maybe she really was born in 1904. It's just a matter of whether this can actually be proven.

I think that LQ can still validate Elisabeth Kimoff, at age 108, as the oldest validated Macedonian-born person ever, no? That's still a significant national achievement, even if she, to our knowledge, fell short of SC status.

@futurist Longeviquest doesn't usually validate emigrants without records from their home country, as far as I can tell.

Posted by: @musicotic

↑

@futurist Longeviquest doesn't usually validate emigrants without records from their home country, as far as I can tell.

Even if there is an immigration record from within the 20-year-window?

About Andrew Hatch, if, as according to what Robert Young and others have implied, Mr. Hatch was (likely) an illegitimate child, then maybe his original last name wasn't actually Hatch? If so, then maybe early-life US Census records actually do exist for him, if only we'll actually be able to discover what his original last name was.

An honorary mention for this woman:

Hellen Guthrie (1917-2025), age 107 (slightly less than two months before her 108th birthday), a US Navy WWII veteran:

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/hellen-guthrie-spencer-indianapolis-indiana-world-war-ii-navy-dies-107/531-819c32ed-1b59-42b7-997e-320dad44562c

May she RIP. 🙁

LQ really should downgrade James Wiggins's age by one year, from 112y,1d to 111y,1d, due to him not being listed in the (June) 1880 US Census together with his parents (or anywhere else on this census as far as I can tell, for that matter) and due to his parents getting married in January 1880. Thus a birth in October 1880 would be more likely for him than a birth in October 1879 would be. Plus, he can't be verified wtih a birth in October 1879 because the 1900 US Census (which says October 1879) would only be within the 20-year-window with an October 1880 birth.

I found this Chilean SC claimant (claimed age 110) from 1899:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/about/G7KV-XKG

Here's his death record:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QL7D-45XX?lang=en

His wife died several years later at the claimed age of 100:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6TKH-C4HT?lang=en

@Fish @Mendocino Do you think that there is any chance to find out just how old he and his wife actually were?

I noticed that on the top 50 oldest living people list, only a single Latin American from outside of either Brazil or Argentina exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_people

Brazil makes sense because it's by far the largest Latin American country, but still, one would have expected more Latin American countries to be represented there.