Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Genealogy: How to Build a House of Citations

"Just what is the difference between the ground, the first floor, and the second floor of the genealogy citation? I don't get it."

Well I'm glad you asked. There is a lovely photo of my grandparents up there that my cousin Tammy gave me. Let's walk through the floors of citation and attribution, from the bare minimum (floor) to the best ever (roof).

The Ground: "My grandparents at their wedding. Tammy gave me a copy of this photo Uncle Martin took."

Positive: we know a little about who's in the photo and where it came from.
Negative: no identifying information, no idea who Tammy is unless you're family, and virally, it has little incentive for people copying it to contact you.

This is bare minimum that you need in order to get a citation in. But it gives us some information we didn't have before, like what it is, who has it, and someone's contact info.

The Basement: "My grandparents are their wedding in 1934. Tammy Creswell gave me a copy of this photo Uncle Martin Graves took, she can be reached at tlctc on Ancestry and I'm cfbandit on Ancestry."

Positive: we know a little about who's in the photo and can probably piece together who's talking and where it came from. Getting better with the contact info. A little more detail. Now we know who Tammy is! And we know who took the photo, to better trace copyright rules.
Negative: We still don't have a lot of info. We don't know who the people in the photo are. We're still not clear on who's talking.

The first floor: "Daniel James Graves and Louvain Needham at their wedding on 21 December 1934. Tammy Creswell (tlctc on Ancestry) gave me a copy of this photo that Uncle Martin Graves gave her permission to share. Email me at to talk about it!"

Positive: Now we're starting to get somewhere. We know who is in the photo and when this was taken. We know where to find it. We have some contact info if it starts to spread.
Negative: We're still missing some key info, like where it was taken and the formatting leaves a lot to be desired.

The second floor: "Daniel James Graves and Louvain Needham at their wedding on 21 December 1934 in Elk Point, Alberta, Canada", JPEG photo, from Tammy Creswell (tlctc on Ancestry), permission to share from Martin Graves, 1934. Email me at to talk about it!"

Positive: This is starting to look like a real citation. There's all the info we need to understand the who, what, where, and when of the photo, and who's got it now and where to talk about it.
Negative: This is really starting to look good! Really the only thing that's missing is a link to the location of the file.

The ceiling: "Online photo, "Daniel James Graves and Louvain Needham at their wedding on 21 December 1934 in Elk Point, Alberta, Canada", JPEG photo, from Tammy Creswell (tlctc on Ancestry), permission to share from Martin Graves, 1934. Email me at to talk about it!"

Positive: This is starting to look like a real citation. There's all the info we need to understand the who, what, where, and when of the photo, and who's got it now and where to talk about it. Even better, we can go to the tree and verify its existence for ourselves.
Negative: Again, starting to look good, but we have to find the photo, not directly linked to it.

The roof: "Tammy Cresswell, "Daniel James Graves and Louvain Needham at their wedding on 21 December 1934 in Elk Point, Alberta, Canada." JPEG Photo, (Online: Tammy Cresswell (tlctc),  2010),, accessed on Ancestry Tree by Concetta Phillipps on 15 April 2014. Permission to share and republish from Martin Graves, given 1934. 
Email me at to talk about it!"

Positive: This is starting to look like a real citation. There's all the info we need to understand the who, what, where, and when of the photo, and who's got it now and where to talk about it. Even better, we can go to the tree and verify its existence for ourselves. And we've got full attribution rights as listed.
Negative: These citations and attributions can get quite long and sometimes exceed the characters allowed in the Ancestry description box. 

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Genealogy: Is segregation okay, or should we all play in the same sandbox?

First off, why yes, the title does have strong language. I have to admit, I get pretty riled up at some of the topics going around the genealogy community as of late. See Tammy Hepps' "Is Genealogy a Hobby?" and James Tanner's "Is Genealogy a Hobby?" and several posts on Drew Smith's blog. I apologize in advance, this may get a little long.

The latest is "Hobbyists vs. Professionals". If you don't do your genealogy to at least the GPS you're not a genealogist and you're not doing genealogy. (With "Professional" standing in for anyone who does give a whit about sourcing and has some idea of attribution, copyright, and publishing, and "Hobbyist" standing in for the folks who have more fun making discoveries than documenting them).

To all the people that say they are on either side of this - I want you to go volunteer for a month to help people do their genealogy at their FHC, on GenWeb, etc. and then come back to this issue.

As someone who strongly believes in education and in the value of having a floor of knowledge, I think that we need to work harder as genealogists to bring the two camps together. On the other hand, there are always going to be some people who do not care about sourcing nor do they care about genealogy in general. They are there to do their genealogy because it was put on their list of things to do before they die. They're not doing it for the love of the puzzle, for the love of finding out the truth about their ancestry, or the joy of finding a long forgotten ancestor in a book from the 1700s.

In the above diagram, we see the three groups - the genealogy, the professionals, and the hobbyists.

A lot of folks seem to be arguing that the way things "should" work is that professionals have an exclusive hold on the genealogy world. The "hobbyists" get to dabble and should be dismissed. 

The problem with this? The cart and the horse have already left. The train's out of the station. The car is done and left the house. 

The Internet's democratizing effect happened in genealogy just like every other hobby and industry. I think some people are STILL bitter over that, and it happened 20 years ago now. So it made genealogy something that everyone can do. And now Ancestry has capitalized on this, telling everyone it is fun and easy (one of the words that should be banned from any hobby) to do genealogy:

No, I do not believe that you can point and click to your genealogy. But I do think we can help the folks who DO think this without having to get into the finer details of APA formatting and perfect citations. 

If you ask me, this is what the world of genealogy really looks like. Genealogy has equal interaction with both hobbyists and professionals. We play in the same sandbox. We NEED the professionals in order to set the bar of what the mid-ground folks aspire to. They inspire the people that grow out of being a hobbyist (perhaps, as a child) and into the professional category through education.

I wrote this on Tammy's blog, but I believe it needs saying again. We need to do three things:

1, have the experts posting in the same sandbox as everyone else but in the highest quality possible. We need people to point to for inspiration for the middle group of genealogists who want to elevate their work from hobby to excellence. 

2, expand the best education out there. Work with Rootstech, FamilySearch, Ancestry, GenWeb, etc. to help push common sense education that anyone can understand to get that genealogy isn’t about names and dates, its about history and people and life. 

3, Work to help people get the best quality information out there. Helping them get to high quality research sites, helping them get to the right experts in a niche (i.e. Judy Russell for law research, Elizabeth Shown Mills work for sourcing help, Gene Williams for criminal research, Thomas MacEntee for technology, etc.).

By pointing folks strongly at simple, easy to understand education in every form from emails to message boards to videos and articles, we can make a floor for folks to understand that at a minimum, their tree needs to say where they got their information and from whom. It may be just "Mom downloaded this" but that helps ALL of the folks in all of the camps figure out how to judge the evidence in front of them. What we could strive for is "US Census, 1880, Port Sanilac, Sanilac, Michigan" and then we can applaud them for when they make a full citation and include a link or image. 

From there, you can progressively raise the floor until it starts to get closer and closer to the ceiling of what we want to see. Folks will always be out in the fringe of that hobbyist category, but their data will start falling further and further into the fringe, and the good stuff will start to come closer to what we want to see. Folks will always be on the upper fringe of the Professional category as well, and that's okay. We need idols like them to help all of us in the middle to understand the how and the what of what we are doing. 

But we cannot help people if we are arguing constantly of what camp people are in, and how we can exclude everyone else. Multiple examples of segregation over the years have proved the system doesn't work. Education has time and time again proven that it can raise people off the floor and towards the ceiling. We need to focus everyone's efforts on making the floor, then starting to raise it so that the overall quality of genealogy in general will be as high as we want to see when the innovations of the common family tree and the common DNA tree start to converge (a topic for another day).

I doubt many people will read this article all the way through (my genealogy articles always seem to lag far behind the crafting ones in terms of reader numbers), but I hope it inspires the folks who are in a position to help influence this silly segregation and bring our genealogy community together. 

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

St. Joseph's Day - advice for Sfince di San Giuseppe for gluten free folks and a bit of history

This my friends, is a sfinge (sfince in Italiano). Flickr user Howard Wallfish shows off the colors of it nicely here, with the ricotta, orange peel, and cherry. 

My family was not exceptionally into the Italian feast holidays. I suspect is has to do with the fact that the US was not a friendly place for Italians during the WWII era and many Italian Americans outside the major strongholds like Brooklyn decided it was better to fit in and provide a good life for their children than stick with feasts and other events. 

St. Joseph's day, however, has always been a special thing for me. I always try to wear green for my grandmother on March 17 for St. Patrick and red on March 19 for my grandfather. They were always so close to each other, it only seems fitting that their respective races have their major holidays only two days apart. Even when I was 16 hours away from my extended family, it was my little way of putting a connection back together. 

Most Italian American families have traditions that go back to the Middle Ages. When there were famines in Italy, especially in Southern Italy, the poor families relied on their faith to keep going. St. Joseph is the protector of the Holy Family (for those of you non-Christians out there that's the baby Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and himself). So the people would pray to him to end the famine, and they would celebrate when the famine ended by celebrating and making offerings with fish, with bread, and for dessert, sfingi, using the best of the foods that were preserved for use (waste not, want not). The candied orange peel would traditionally be the last bit of the oranges that were preserved over the winter to prevent scurvy, the cherries, soaked in alcohol to preserve them, and the ricotta, the last of the whey left over from making cheese from sheep, cow, goat, or Italian water buffalo milk.   

Now before we get into the advice about gluten free sfinge, a word.

Sfinge is NOT Zeppole. Those of you who don't like ricotta filling can just suck it. Even the bakers admit they only make zeppole for St. Joseph's Day because they have to for pitiful American palates. If you're going to gorge on this many calories, you should go for the real thing. There, now that is out of my system...

The question becomes after that, what do you do if you're gluten free, and like most Italian-Americans, making food for the St. Joseph's Day feast? 

Let's start with these:

Nichole from Gluten Free on a Shoestring has an amazing recipe for creme puffs that would give you the base recipe that you need in order to make the dough for real Sfinge. If you were being 100% traditional, you would want to fry them, but I think they're at least a little healthier if you bake them. 

Then, the next step would be filling. Let's go back to the traditional filling: ricotta, chocolate, sugar, grated or candied orange peel, and crème de cacao (though I think you can do w/o it). There you go! Gluten free Sfingi di San Giuseppe. 

If you want to admire some gorgeous Sfinge di San Giuseppe, you need to check out the blog at Pane, Burro e Marmellata.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Update: Osgood scarf

So an update on the Osgood scarf - I'm progressing through it, though its probably only about 10% done. It's looking very nice so far, I've been pleased with how enjoyable it is to knit the ribbing. The white/clay sections are the most annoying by far. I've come to decide that is because I enjoy knitting the colors much more.

For those of you working on a scarf of your own, StarCATs over at Ravelry has done an insanely excellent job of compiling the data we know and making the observations on the row counts, fringe, and edges of the scarf. If you're interested, I would recommend going over to Rav and checking out her project page which has a graphic with the row counts that is very useful.

I've mainly been working on it when my hands hurt too much to crochet toys at the tight gauge they need to be at, so I don't think its doing bad for working on it here and there.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Part 3: Here's the positive way of dealing with New Genealogists

I decided to move this column up a bit to explain the end of the series before the weekend, based on the amount of comments I received on Google+.

So what happened to David? Well, I decided to write a forum with my frustrations and see if someone else could see something that I could not. 

Name: David Ingerson 
Marriage to Almira Drake 1821 Evans Mills, Jefferson Co, New York, United States 
Kid 1 Eneas Ingerson, b. 1832 NY 
Census 1850 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 
Marriage to Elizabeth Graves 1852 
Mary J Ingerson, b. 1852 NY
Jay Eugene Ingerson, b. 1857 NY 
Census 1860 Macomb, St Lawrence, New York, United States 
Military 1864 Private, 92nd New York Infantry 
Census 1870 Forester, Sanilac, Michigan, United States 
Census 1880 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 

Death 23 April 1886 Gouverneur, St Lawrence, New York

I've updated "Super David" above in bold with things that have moved further along the proof line. What does this map from Wikipedia have to do with anything? It represents something that I hadn't previously considered - that it was easier than expected to get between New York and Michigan at the time because of the railroad. Am I farther along in providing David's full line? No, but I have significant progress and I've also impacted several other folks in this same area (Elizabeth Graves Ingerson's family, in particular).

As most of you are probably saying, this is a charming aside, but what does it have to do with anything? I use this as an episode in how working with others, even those who don't know the ESM standard for evidence and have scrapbooks of census info and other documents and have trees on Ancestry can be helpful in pointing out how to critically evaluate evidence. 

And that's what is missing from this treatment of new genealogists in the field. We are not using our opportunity to teach people critical thinking and evidence evaluation. We are in short, cutting off our own nose to spite our face. What's so frustrating is that social media offers so many opportunities to do better. In short:
1. We can go into depth and share our information with more people than ever before, thanks to blogs, online sources like, Fold3,, and many digital sources at our local libraries, like Early American Newspapers, 19th Century British Newspapers, and Heritage Quest, to name a few!
2. We can EXPLAIN in great detail the how, the when, and the why behind our decisions in making our trees. We are not limited by the length of the words that can fit on the page.
3. We can use many platforms to enhance the knowledge of folks who live even in the farthest reaches of the world.

If every genealogy blogger out there took the time to write one blog about a particular situation they faced and how they solved it, the world's knowledge base of genealogy would be greatly advanced, and for the folks that are choosing to learn about genealogy, represent a base of knowledge that could help them pick up their own critical thinking skills and be able to make the decision whether or not to add that 53,002nd person, or to walk away and work on a person in there existing tree.

In short, instead of throwing up our hands, calling them collectors and railing against what is immovable, we could give an effort to making things change, and then working on our own ability to manage what's out there. All we can control is what we do, not what THEY do.

As a result, my approach to these people has changed. Instead of sending angry rants to my genealogy buds about this, I'm trying really hard to make my approach to try and explain to people what is not correct, and then working on my own response to the issue. It is their onus whether or not they will take me up on learning why what they have is not correct. I can continue to use their research as a way to point me in a direction, but I will continue to critically evaluate every point in an ancestor's life, no matter what the source.

Part 2: The Pitfall of Vilification of New Genealogists

So in part 1 I talked about the frustration of the vilification of all new genealogists, asking folks to throw away years of work or take their work offline or follow a so-called "expert's" standard from an online forum.

I can see where that might be mystifying to many genealogists, who really don't use social media for genealogy. But I will keep going with the negative issues associated with this vilification for the moment (rest assured, tomorrow's post will conclude with some positive ways to focus) for the moment. Please bear with me.

So what's the problem with hating on the new people? #1. It teaches you to be sloppy.

Recently, I decided to write up a series of blog posts  on a couple that I've been working on for 3 years with little luck and little family interest in trying to see what happened to them, David Ingerson and Elizabeth Ann Graves.

Those blogs are still in draft mode. Why? Because I realized that I was following in this trap. I recently discovered a very small piece of information about David Ingerson online. Curious, I click on the Mundia link  given by Google and see:

See that last part? Let me zoom in for you.

Yes, that says 53,692 people in this person's tree. ::facepalm::

Now, I was about to do as most of the other online forum members would do - roll my eyes, dismiss this person's research, and assume that it was bad. What could I do? It was so frustrating! Yet I found the brain power to follow the advice in my opening pic. "Check myself before I wreck myself!" 

Here's the thing. Yes, this person's research was TERRIBLE. But it made me stop and think to evaluate MY research. So I compiled what I have affectionately dubbed "Super David" with ALL of my research put together:

“Super David” Ingerson 
Child of Jonathan Ingerson and Abigail Scofield ?
Birth 29 Apr 1801 Saratoga, Saratoga, New York, United States ?
Marriage to Almira Drake 1821 Evans Mills, Jefferson Co, New York, United States 
Kid 1 Eneas Ingerson, b. 1832 NY 
Census 1850 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 
Marriage to Elizabeth Graves 1852 
Mary J Ingerson, b. 1851 NY 
Jay Eugene Ingerson, b. 1857 NY 
Census 1860 Macomb, St Lawrence, New York, United States 
Military 1864 Private, 92nd New York Infantry 
Census 1870 Forester, Sanilac, Michigan, United States 
Death 13 May 1872 Sanilac, Sanilac, Michigan, United States ?
Census 1880 Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York, United States 
Death 23 April 1886 Gouverneur, St Lawrence, New York

This compilation of facts that have been put together across multiple years of research shows the mess that Super David is in. 2 deaths, a semi-proven parentage (? standing for questionable data in this case, blogs really aren't the best place for me to pull all the sources together without writing up a full case study). 

So I dug into each fact individually, taking each piece of evidence on its face. 

And I would have probably thrown the computer out the window if I could have. Instead, I substituted my rage for knitting, and calmed right back down.

Tomorrow: the conclusion of the story, and why the world is not doomed because of all these new genealogists

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Part 1: Vilifying the Work of New Genealogists

Warning: the following contains genealogy opinion and is the start of a new series for the week. This chilling image of the Fascists is from the Wolfsonian-FIU Library in Miami Beach, Florida. It's really interesting how propagandists used images like this to de-humanize the view of the enemy.

I am strongly getting that impression when it comes to the current state of genealogy. Folks are lining up to vilify the newest genealogists coming into the field (and no, you should not get an image of old people knocking young people here, it is across all ages!) and those folks who are working from sites like as being stupid, illiterate, degenerate, "doing it wrong", "not real genealogists", "not real family historians", "name collectors", and too unintelligent to follow the "rules". And that these folks view anyone who even breathes the word "source" or "formatting" as "elitists".

It's disheartening to see so many folks dismissed from such an interesting hobby that can help you with so many life skills. And like the old argument that "German = Fascist" which caused so many Germans to be shunned in WWII, "Muslim = Terrorist" which causes so many folks from across the spectrum to be wrongly ostracized or accused, and "American = fat, lazy, stupid" which has caused all smart Americans to masquerade as Canadians abroad, we need to stop playing with a stereotype. And what's worse? The folks who are leading the charge are the genealogy elite - Michael J. LeClerc, for example. I won't call all of them out, because I think its pointless. I doubt they're going to listen and will just continue driving the wedge between the generations until no one dares whisper the word genealogist for fear of being called a snobby, elitist, obsessive.

What does it do to a new genealogist or family historian's self worth when experienced genealogists say they have to delete everything and start over because they made so many mistakes? Or when we say their work is worthless, their platform is awful, and that they've stolen all their work?

We end up with a lot of new folks who are frustrated, think that we're a bunch of elitists and aren't willing to give genealogy another shot and leave the hobby, because they've done their work and there's no reason to continue. When in actuality, there are SO many reasons to continue.

What is happening in the field is that I see more and more folks chillingly cut out of the very conversations that would benefit them, because of intensity of derogatory language, and the "demands" of a few people who deem that they know better than all. And I'm not talking about the educated experts like Elizabeth Shown Mills, Geoffrey Rasmussen, James Tanner, Marien Pierre-Louis, Michael Hait, Judy Russell, Thomas MacEntee, Elise Powell, or Maureen Taylor (for example). I'm talking about online forum posters and group members for the most part.

I am actively involved in genealogy on Facebook, Twitter, Ravelry, and several other informal forum groups. In recent weeks (mostly spurred on by LeClerc's article) there have been posts where people are denigrated for wanting to find further education and not knowing where to go, for having their tree published online at all, and in many answers, urged to "throw away all that crap so that you can start over" (in this case an answer to someone who had inherited their parents' 30+ years of research! And others who were made out to be villains for even thinking about putting their tree online at all, because that's just "giving it away" and "everyone will steal it" and still others told that they should just stop doing genealogy unless they were willing to following X standard.

Tomorrow: let's play what's wrong with this picture. 

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Be a fan. Stop beating yourself up over it. No more dissing fangirls and fanboys.

I've been ruminating on this topic since I went to Chicago TARDIS and one of the topics was called "Moffat Fangirls". There's still a real stigma against showing enthusiasm for anything unless it fits with social norms. For guys, that's sports and for ladies, that's cooking and fashion.

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiam"
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Do you want to know who was the first fanboy?

Hello, Pope Sixtus! (Thanks Titian for the great portrait, courtesy of Wikipedia). In 1471, Pope Sixtus donated some sculptures to the Musei Capitolini in Rome with the intention of showing off their awesomeness (Okay, awesomeness might not have been a word then, but the concept is the same).

So when did we go from the Pope to this?

Clearly meant as satirical, and yet, that's the vision people have of the fan. Crazed, screaming, nuts, and other such nonsense.

Clue yourself in: fans of anything are great! It doesn't matter if your thing is a geek thing, a Japanese thing, a zombie thing, a music thing, or a movie thing. It just matters that you feel and interact with other people that feel the same way. As long as you don't retreat into that world as a substitute for your own world (which can be unhealthy), being a fan of something is fun, easy, can be as low or as high of a cost as you want, and can bring a little sunshine to your life.

I recently watched the video of the inimitable Tavi Gevinson, and what she says makes a lot of sense. Be a fan. Enjoy it. Figure out why it means so much to you. And have fun.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

I'm Stuck. The Story of Nathaniel Mitchell Clark and Almedia Van Koughnet

Okay, so I'm in an interesting situation. I have a couple that disappear in Ontario after 1877 and I'm thinking there's something wrong with the research. I beg your assistance, please! There has to be something I'm not seeing here. There are four scenarios that I see: 

1. The Almedia Clark died in 1873 is my 3rd great grandmother.
2. The other majority (including myself) is right and there's an Almedia Storring out there to find. 
3. There's a huge combination of errors here leading me to completely erroneous conclusions.
4. There's such a huge lack of missing information that's what's causing the problem. 

What would you suggest to do next? I'll give you the background, and see what you think.

Let me begin at the beginning. Almedia VanKoughnet (sometimes listed as Van Coughnette) was born in Frdericksburg, Lennox & Addington Co, Ontario in 1827. She marries Nathaniel Mitchell Clark, has 7 children (Margaret, Hulda, William James, Foster, Rhoda, Mahala, and Georgiana) between 1846 and 1864. I've got her nailed down in Madoc, Hastings Co, Ontario, in 1852, and then in Kennebec, Frontenac, Ontario in 1861. The two censuses I have about Nathaniel Mitchell Clark say he was born in Canada about 1823. (Note: when they were married is a big question mark. We have no evidence of the marriage.)

1852 census of Madoc, Hastings, Ontario

1861 census of Kennebec, Frontenac, Ontario

Now here's where the research I have lead differs from some of the other researchers. There's an Almedia Van Koughnet recorded as having a child with Gilbert O. Storing in 1869, and they are in the 1871 census as having the Clark children and Frances Victoria Storing in Kennebec.

"1952-69 (Frontenac Co) STORING, Frances Victoria, f, b. 20 Dec. 1869, father - Gilbert O. STORING, sawyer, mother - Almeda VANCOUGHNETTE (s/b Vankoughnet), infm - father, Kennebec"

1871 census of Kennebec, Frontenac, Ontario

So that would lead me to conclude that Nathaniel probably died in between 1861 and 1871. Thing is, I can't find a marriage for Almedia and Gilbert AND I can't seem to find a death for Nathaniel, either. It would be a little early for a death for Nathaniel (age 38-48), but not unheard of for the time period.

But then, there's a death record for an Almedia Clark, died 18 April 1873, age 42 in South Fredericksburg, Lennox & Addington, Ontario, and the witness was William M. Clark. But the age is off (not by a lot) and the change in the middle initial is making me suspicious that this is not correct.

Ontario Death Record for an Almedia Clark, d. 18 April 1873

So now we are split. There's about half of us that believe that we should be looking for an Almeda Storring, and another half that believes the Almedia Clark who died in 1873 is our woman, and Nathaniel's death wasn't recorded (for whatever reason).

And from there...excepting Foster, who ends up in the US, my 2nd great grandmother Mahala, and Georgiana, who has one appearance in the 1881 census, the entire family drops off the map. Just gone.

As a side note, Gilbert survives them all, living until age 92 until he passes away as a destitute widower in Dover, Kent, Ontario on 5 June 1910.

Ontario Death Record for Gilbert Storring, d. 5 June 1910.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Just as a side note, here's some additional information about the family:

Nathaniel Mitchell Clark
(Last mention: 1861)

Almedia Vankoughnet
(Last mention: 1871)

Margaret Clark
(Last mention: 1861)

Hulda Clark
(Last mention: 1867)

William James Clark
(Last mention: 1871)

Foster Clark
(Last mention: 1911)

Rhoda Clark
(Last mention: 1877)

Mahala Jane Clark
(Last mention: 1932)

Georgiana Clark
(Last mention: 1881)

Gilbert O. Storing
(disappears from 1871-1910)

Frances Victoria Storing
(Last mention: 1871)

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

A Year of Scarves by Susan Huxley

I don't often repost things, just because I think it's kind of like open book tests. Someone already wrote this thing, and then I put it here, and by association, I'm supposed to sound knowledgeable.

But, sometimes good content is too hard to not repost.

"Every day this year I'm giving you free instructions for a scarf. Every. Day. Knit, crochet, or a combination of both. Here, I'm going to talk about the creative process for that day's featured work. There will be a photo. And a link over to to download your instructional pdf.

But act fast if you like something because the next day those instructions won't be free. Inexpensive, but not free. You can also buy an entire week or month of instructions for less than getting each one individually.

Wait 'til you see what's in store for you...The fun begins on January 1. See you then!

All the best,
Susan Huxley"

So you see, you need to go over to the Year of Scarves blog and sign up for her RSS feed or emails in order to find out about each scarf every day. And get them while you can, because they won't be free the following day!  She's a knitter AND a crocheter so there are equal opportunity freebies for all!