Copperplate handwriting

[Redroger]

 Though I have just found my father at around the 4th attempt, I feel I should draw attention to a problem ongoing from the 1911 census, that is the transcription of a capital L in copperplate handwriting
My father Sydney Harold Luffman was b 1899 and has so far appeared in 3 censuses, the first in 1903 2 days after his mother's suicide, as Harold Luffman. I would imagine everything was confused in the household, and the mistake is foregiveable/ On the death of his 74 year father (he was 3) he moved to his mother's sister's family, and I found him after some considerable searching in 1911 named Suffoma, that copperplate L taken as an S, but I found him.
Tonight, knowing where he should be I searched tomight no luck, but finally located him lodging with an aunt in Boston, all details correct, railway fireman 22, surname clear, but shown as Suffe. Once again copperplate strikes. Please be warned. Luckily I have his precise date of birth so it was relatively easy, Christian name, year of birth and location. 141 to pick from round about No.30. £3.50 paid, but where is the address on the entry I have bought. Cant see it.

[Comberton]

www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=857098.msg7257453#msg7257453

[heywood]

In 1911, he is transcribed as Sydney Harold Luffman on Ancestry, although looking at the page, I can see it could be read as ‘Suffoma’ as the ‘n’ looks to be omitted.
I would not describe the writing as good ‘copperplate’ style though, which perhaps causes the errors.

[GR2]

In 1911, FindMyPast transcribes it as Sydney Harrold Luffman.

Looking at the original document, Harrold does have a double r. The writer's S and L are similar, but not exactly the same. They begin L with a stroke from the top and S with one from the bottom. Capital L appears later on in "Labourer". The writer has written Luff[]ma, missing out the final n. The bit in [] is not an o, but seems to just be an extra part of the m. Quite possibly the writer has written Luffnma, putting the last three letters in the wrong order.

[Redroger]

In 1911, he is transcribed as Sydney Harold Luffman on Ancestry, although looking at the page, I can see it could be read as ‘Suffoma’ as the ‘n’ looks to be omitted.
I would not describe the writing as good ‘copperplate’ style though, which perhaps causes the errors.

He is only here because I took the trouble to have the entry corrected.

[heywood]

It doesn’t show that there is an amendment so I didn’t realise that.
If that is the case, it is good to know that Ancestry have acted on your instructions.
The writing isn’t that good and the error is understandable though.

[Redroger]

I thought it showed them, but what's one error amongst thousands?At least its right.

[heywood]

I think that in this case the name would be very difficult for the transcriber.

[Copper1]

Just thinking off top of head, surely the real issue is why is the error (of misunderstood handwriting) still happening? Has anyone discovered exactly what induction transcriber's  - particularly FindMyPast's 1921 team, received individually about fountain pen handwriting? Especially since there's a distinct probability nobody under the age of 40 in the '2010s' would have had an in depth knowledge of one hundred year old handwriting. Bar those of course who had had a previous induction to it.

As the predicament of similar issues has been around for many census', it would only be expected prospective bidders for the task, this time, would surely have faced tough questions from TNA in the bidding process - or maybe not? Anything related to 'commercial confidentiality' of course would only be defending the likelihood the transcriber's ability was/is still not brought into question.