The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records

Anyone who is researching ancestors in the state of Connecticut soon finds references to "The Barbour Collection." In fact, this is one of the most extensive collections in genealogy and is the definitive source for early Connecticut records.

Lucius Barnes Barbour was the Connecticut Examiner of Public Records from 1911 to 1934. He directed a project in which all the known birth, marriage, and death records to about 1850 for 137 Connecticut towns were copied and abstracted. He hired several individuals who were experienced in copying old records and could read the old scripts. These individuals typed the newly-created abstracts onto preprinted forms.

The form sheets were then cut, each page producing twelve small slips. The slips were then alphabetized, and then all the information was typed a second time onto larger sheets of paper which were later bound into volumes, one volume per town. In the twenty-three year effort, Barbour and his assistants produced 14,333 typed pages of vital records. They could have saved many thousands of hours of labor if they only had computers back in 1911 when Barbour embarked on this project! Barbour's original hand-typed documents are now stored at the Connecticut Historical Society in Hartford. They have also been microfilmed.

In recent years, under the general editorship of Lorraine Cook White, Genealogical Publishing Company has been publishing town-by-town transcriptions of Barbour's collection of vital records in books. Each book covers one or more towns. This week I had a chance to look at volume 55, the records of Windsor, Connecticut, from 1637 to 1850. As you can see, Windsor is near the end of the alphabet. In fact, it is the last entry on an alphabetical list of Connecticut towns. Thanks to Lorraine Cook White and Genealogical Publishing Company, all of Barbour's works are now available in book form at reasonable prices.

Each volume in the 55-volume series contains the birth, marriage, and death records of one or more Connecticut towns. Entries are listed in alphabetical order by town (also in alphabetical order) and typically give name, date of event, names of parents, names of children, names of both spouses, and sometimes such items as age, occupation, and place of residence.

For instance, here is a typical entry from Barbour's records for Windsor:

CHASE, Charles A., of Warehouse Point, m. Nancy H. POMEROY, of New London, Apr. 11, 1841, by Ezra S. Cook. Volume 2, Page 475.

In the above record, "m." means "married" and "by" is followed by the name of the minister. "Volume 2, Page 475" is a source citation as to where the original information was found.

For many individuals, you can find more than just birth, marriage, and death records. For instance:

FORWARD, Samuel, adm. Ch. And communicant Oct. [ ], 1671 MG

The above record indicates that Samuel Forward was admitted to the church in October of 1671, according to the Matthew Grant Record.

If you have Connecticut ancestry prior to 1850, you need to examine the Barbour Collection! It has more facts of interest to Connecticut genealogists than any other single source. If you already know the town(s) where the ancestors lived, you can find the references within seconds. At worst case, you may have to look through numerous books listing different towns. While that may be a tedious task, it is still faster than any other method available today.

The Barbour Collection is a total of 55 volumes covering all 137 towns in Connecticut. It is the largest series of books in Genealogical Publishing Company's history. Prices vary from $23.50 to $45.00 per volume. Be aware, however, that some of the volumes are out of print. For more information, or to safely order volumes via Genealogical Publishing Company's safe and secure online order system, go to http://tinyurl.com/34k2q.

Comments

[Cari Thomas]

Hi Dick,

While I appreciate this very interesting history of the Barbour Collection, it occurred to me that there were no cautions expressed re: the accuracy of these records.

I have no Connecticut connections personally (so far), but the first thing that popped into my head - as early as the 2nd paragraph - was the word "transcription"!

As I understand from your article, the original town records were transcribed #1 and cut into small slips of paper - then the TRANSCRIPTION was transcribed yet again #2 onto full pages. And now "Genealogical Publishing Company has been publishing town-by-town transcriptions" #3 of the collection (ie of either transcription #1 or transcription #2)

Whether researching in version #1, #2, or #3, it seems to me a researcher should be reminded of the possibility of human error inherent in transcriptions and to always go back to the original, if at all possible.

Perhaps I'm not giving your readers the benefit of the doubt on this subject, but for so many, it seems: "if it's in print, it must be so." ???

As always, thanks for each week's informative newsletter.....

Cari Thomas

[Helen Ullmann]

Sorry if I posted a partial message by mistake.
As I was saying, I concur with the previous comment. White's transcriptions are taken from Barbour's transcriptions of Arnold's transcriptions of the original records.

When I published some of the Thompson, Conn., church marriages in the REGISTER in 2001, I compared them with Barbour and with the original Thompson records. Arnold/Barbour had quite a few errors, some significant.

Years ago I had occasion to compare a few original Kent records with Barbour and found errors.

There's an article in the June CONNECTICUT NUTMEGGER comparing Barbour with another town's records. Haven't read the article yet, but it probably suggests the same caution.

Also, remember that there are a number of towns not in Barbour. Especially New Haven, rather a big missing chunk!

Helen S. Ullmann, CG, FASG

[K Smith]

Some caution and some imagination!

In reviewing the "Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records: Hartford Vital Records 1635 -1855", I discovered two Smith families with children with the same names and birth dates. Turned out that several entries for "Lymon & Hannah" Smith were actually for "Simon and Hannah" Smith, my ancestors. Simon is often spelled Symon, Simeon, and now apparently, Lymon.

But that little mystery aside, I could never accumulate all the wonderful bits of information in Barbour. It is a wonderful resource.

[Jay Lillie]

I know that the letter "m" stands for married. I dont know the letters s. means IE "Benjamen Holt, s. [Ezra & Ester], b. Nov 30, 1809"I think I know what b. means, Born but I don't know what s. means?
I don't know what d. means IE"Charlott Augusta, d. [Ezra & Ester], b. July15, 1813" Can you get clarification on the meanings of letters?

Thank you,

[Deborah Southworth Sweet]

In answer to Jay Lillie - "s." means "son of," in other words, using the example you gave "Benjamen Holt, son of Ezra and Ester Holt. [Benjamen was] b. Nov. 30 1809.
"d." means "Daughter"

As to the Barbour Collection not being completely reliable, due to human error. Since when has *any* secondary genealogical source been accepted as reliable? What has *always* been the Number One Rule of Genealogy? - Check the facts for yourself at the Primary Source!
The value of the Barbour Collection lies in the SOURCE it gives for each entry - the Town, Liber/Volume, and Page from which each entry was taken.
I have used the Collection as a stepping stone to send for certified copies of birth, marriage and death entries for many, many early New England ancestors, and have never been disappointed! Have I had to do some deciphering and creative thinking to figure out mispellings, multiple spellings, multiple entries, or why someone actually born in another town was listed in a different place? Sure, but nothing that determination and good research skills can't handle.
It's all part of the detective game we are all so addicted to, and part of the enjoyment of it all comes when that magic "Aha!" moment occurs, and the pieces of the puzzle finally fall into place.
Regards,
Deborah Southworth Sweet