Age on Death Certificate

[ChrisAllonby]

Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to the age of the deceased, as shown below - 70, 75, or something else?

Thanks,
Chris.

[Jebber]

I see it as 75.

[softly softly]

So do I, as per his gro record in 1898

SS

[emeltom]

I'd go for 75 as well.

It's worth remembering that the info given for the Death certificate is only as good as the knowlegde of the person giving that information. It is quite common for ages to be out by a few years.

[ChrisAllonby]

Thanks all for the replies. I saw it as 75 to start with. This ties in with the 1891 census. However, I've just got his marriage certificate and his age of 50 in 1878 would put the age at death as 70. Looking at the age on the death cert. it could just about be read as 70. At the moment I'm tending towards 75 and thinking that the marriage cert. is inaccurate - extract shown here:

[Elwyn Soutter]

I see it as 75.

The information on the marriage certificate was first hand and therefore more likely to be accurate than a death certificate where obviously the deceased is not there to assist. I’d generally favour a marriage certificate over a death certificate every time.

[Girl Guide]

An age on a marriage certificate is not a guarantee of accuracy.  I had a marriage certificate where the lady had definitely lied about her age. 

She said she was 26 but she was actually 33.  Married in 1886 born in 1853.  Her husband's age was spot on.

[McGroger]

I agree with Girl Guide. I have a number of people who reduced their age on both marriage certificates and on census records (when they were head of household. One, when later living with an older brother, had it recorded more accurately by him). On death certificates these same people's ages were recorded closer to the truth (when a younger age no longer mattered to their younger wives or their own pride).

And it's definitely 75, not 70, on the death certificate.
 
Peter

[ChrisAllonby]

I tend to agree with the two previous posters. In my current research I have someone who took 10 years off his age on the marriage certificate. He said he was 69, when in fact he was 79. Then again, his bride was 45 at the time, so maybe he had a good reason for understating his age. Interestingly, he may have also understated it in the 1939 Register. As an aside, it's quite a difficult one:

The subject's true age in 1939 was 77, but does this look like 67?