Has the GRO Death Index changed?

[Jomot]

I know that the GRO death index previously made no distinction between years & months, but is that still the case?

I ask because I've just gone to order a death certificate and are two possibilities in the same quarter of 1840, both age 0, but I could have sworn that when I looked at them last year the ages were 3 and 11, which I assumed in both cases to be months. 

[avm228]

Yes I looked at one again recently and thought it must have been amended.  Following to see whether anyone knows the answer.

[rosie99]

Well spotted Jomot 

I looked this one up a while ago 
Death
STANLEY, CHARLES    GRO gives age as 5 which could be weeks/months or years    
1854  Dec Quarter in NANTWICH  Volume 08A  Page 188


It now shows as
STANLEY, CHARLES       0     
GRO Reference: 1854  D Quarter in NANTWICH  Volume 08A  Page 188

[Jomot]

Thanks both - I'm pleased to know I haven't simply gone mad !

[rosie99]

I wonder if this is new on the results page
Age at Death (in years):

[macwil]

I wonder if this is new on the results page
Age at Death (in years):

No, it was always (supposed to be) that. However mistakes were made when transcribing some infant deaths and days/months were entered as years instead of 0. It looks like GRO have finally got round to correcting the errors.

[rosie99]

I realise that it was always meant to mean years but the gro did not have ‘age at death in years’ stated as it does now. 

[andrewalston]

I'm quite pleased that I extracted the data for my one name study when it still let me estimate a birth date.

Incidentally the highest "non-year" entry I came across was 17 (months).

[Jomot]

I'm quite pleased that I extracted the data for my one name study when it still let me estimate a birth date.

Yes, it would have been more helpful if they'd left the data as it was but added something to make it clear where an age was expressed in months rather than years, but presumably this would have been the costlier option.