World Families Forums - Ancestry.com and an Exact 27-Marker Match

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 15, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Ancestry.com and an Exact 27-Marker Match
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Ancestry.com and an Exact 27-Marker Match  (Read 4922 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: July 10, 2011, 08:52:21 AM »

I probably shouldn't mention this, because it could be a flash in the pan, but here goes.

A couple of days ago I joined Ancestry.com (for the genealogy part, not the dna testing). So far, I have enjoyed it and have even been able to expand a couple of my lines, like my maternal grandmother's, which has really taken off. Anyway, Ancestry allows one to enter his y-dna str markers even if he tested with another company, like FTDNA, and check for matches. Well, I entered mine and got an exact 27-marker match with a man listed as "Anonymous" but whose published family tree shows his y-dna line has the surname Stevens (that's my surname). He has his y-dna line traced back further than mine, to 1707 and Connecticut (I can only get mine to 1804 and West Virginia).

I don't recognize any of the names (other than the surname Stevens) in his family tree, but that's probably a good thing.

I sent him a message, but so far he hasn't responded.

Could be something or maybe not.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2011, 02:14:48 PM »

My match contacted me. We do have an exact 27-marker match and share the same surname. Unfortunately, he tested with Ancestry.com and only has the 27 markers (apparently he has 33 markers, but 6 of them are markers I was not tested for by FTDNA). I am hoping he will go with FTDNA and upgrade to at least 37 markers. Of course, 67 would be even nicer.

We'll see.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 02:16:24 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2011, 03:40:42 PM »


Congratulations! It appears to me that it is highly probable your two families have a common origin, though of course the link could be in England and not Connecticut. 

I have two fairly close matches to my very rare haplotype on Ancestry. They have English surnames, but their ancestry doesn't go beyond the USA. I tried contacting them, but they never responded.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 03:49:10 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2011, 06:55:49 PM »

Thanks!

My match and I are in email contact now, and he says he is considering upgrading via Family Tree DNA. I don't want to get my hopes up, but too late for that. They're up.

I sent him FTDNA's promotional flyer offering a reduced price for people who have already tested with Ancestry.

I hope he goes for the 67-marker test, but I would be thrilled with 37.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 06:59:13 PM by rms2 » Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2011, 05:59:24 AM »

great news Rich. I hope this pans out for you.
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2011, 07:24:00 AM »

great news Rich. I hope this pans out for you.

Thanks. I hope so, too.

He seems genuinely interested, so I hope he will order the upgrade soon.
Logged

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2011, 08:44:57 AM »

I probably shouldn't mention this, because it could be a flash in the pan, but here goes.

A couple of days ago I joined Ancestry.com (for the genealogy part, not the dna testing). So far, I have enjoyed it and have even been able to expand a couple of my lines, like my maternal grandmother's, which has really taken off. Anyway, Ancestry allows one to enter his y-dna str markers even if he tested with another company, like FTDNA, and check for matches. Well, I entered mine and got an exact 27-marker match with a man listed as "Anonymous" but whose published family tree shows his y-dna line has the surname Stevens (that's my surname). He has his y-dna line traced back further than mine, to 1707 and Connecticut (I can only get mine to 1804 and West Virginia).

I don't recognize any of the names (other than the surname Stevens) in his family tree, but that's probably a good thing.

I sent him a message, but so far he hasn't responded.

Could be something or maybe not.

Rich,

I had a similar case with a resident of Tuscon, AZ, born in MN, matching my surname, Corcoran, which is not common. It led to a whole series of discoveries in Minnesota and beyond including the original Irish settlers in Minnesota and a town called Corcoran and Green Isle, MN and also including adopted matches. It turns out he originated in the same village as my gggggg grandfather and probably the same house which is still there. He sent me his detailed family tree (over 100 pages) which greatly enhanced my own and led to new areas of investigation.
For my part, I sent him copies of his ancestors (decendants) census records in their original hand writing, grave records and photos, pictures of the house and a detailed genealogy of this family.
I'm sure you will find you match your new cousin and good look in your quest.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2011, 07:40:38 PM »

Thanks, Heber!

Wish he knew as much as your guy does, but neither of us can get our y-dna line out of North America.

Still, it may open up some avenues for investigation.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2011, 09:33:59 PM »

I haven't heard anything from my match at Ancestry.com lately (he went on vacation and I don't know if he's back yet), however, I just got notified by FTDNA of a new exact 25-marker match, and this new match has a variant of my surname. He spells his version Stephens, and my surname is Stevens. I count that as something to get worked up about, at least a little.

I'm hoping he has 67 markers on order and the 25-marker match is just a prelude to bigger and better things to come.

It would be nice if this led to something, but it's hoping for a lot to get a match with someone of the same surname or a variant who not only knows more about your ancestry than you do but who is also just as interested in this stuff. So far, I haven't hit that lottery.

But it's fun to get an exciting new match now and then.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 09:36:33 PM by rms2 » Logged

A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2011, 09:53:41 PM »

glad to hear it rms2.
I did mention some time ago about surnames being miss spelt on arrival in thr U.S.
It would be well worth checking out people with the alternate spelling
Good Luck
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2011, 07:25:11 AM »

glad to hear it rms2.
I did mention some time ago about surnames being miss spelt on arrival in thr U.S.
It would be well worth checking out people with the alternate spelling
Good Luck

Thanks!

I agree with you about spelling variations. Those old folks and old record keepers and census takers were terrible spellers, or it seems spelling was not that important to them. The sound of a name was the thing.

Just the same, oddly enough, my family seems to have always spelled our surname Stevens with a "v". It is that way in the census records I can find and on my most distant y-dna ancestor's gravestone (which I photographed back in 1989).

Still, I suspect it could very well have originally been Stephens or spelled that way by some of the lines.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2011, 05:04:31 PM »

glad to hear it rms2.
I did mention some time ago about surnames being miss spelt on arrival in thr U.S.
It would be well worth checking out people with the alternate spelling
Good Luck

Thanks!

I agree with you about spelling variations. Those old folks and old record keepers and census takers were terrible spellers, or it seems spelling was not that important to them. The sound of a name was the thing.

Just the same, oddly enough, my family seems to have always spelled our surname Stevens with a "v". It is that way in the census records I can find and on my most distant y-dna ancestor's gravestone (which I photographed back in 1989).

Still, I suspect it could very well have originally been Stephens or spelled that way by some of the lines.


Keep in mind that most people were illiterate until fairly modern times, as well as the fact that there was no set spelling of anything, including surnames. Things were just spelled phonetically, at the whim of whoever was doing the writing. Thus in older parish records I have seen some of my ancestral surnames spelled in various ways, depending on the literacy or the whim of the parish clerk who was recording the entry. Spelling of surnames didn't become set until fairly recent times, so this variant could easily have a connection to you from say the 17th century.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2011, 09:43:19 PM »

I found out the gentleman has 37 markers on order (he joined the Stephens/Stevens Project), so I should get a better indication of the possible significance of the match very soon.

On the down side, however, he has not yet answered my email. :-(

Sigh . . .
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2011, 11:23:58 PM »

glad to hear it rms2.
I did mention some time ago about surnames being miss spelt on arrival in thr U.S.
It would be well worth checking out people with the alternate spelling
Good Luck

Thanks!

I agree with you about spelling variations. Those old folks and old record keepers and census takers were terrible spellers, or it seems spelling was not that important to them. The sound of a name was the thing.

Just the same, oddly enough, my family seems to have always spelled our surname Stevens with a "v". It is that way in the census records I can find and on my most distant y-dna ancestor's gravestone (which I photographed back in 1989).

Still, I suspect it could very well have originally been Stephens or spelled that way by some of the lines.


Keep in mind that most people were illiterate until fairly modern times, as well as the fact that there was no set spelling of anything, including surnames. Things were just spelled phonetically, at the whim of whoever was doing the writing. Thus in older parish records I have seen some of my ancestral surnames spelled in various ways, depending on the literacy or the whim of the parish clerk who was recording the entry. Spelling of surnames didn't become set until fairly recent times, so this variant could easily have a connection to you from say the 17th century.
In addition, immigrants may not have (or still) spoke English well and may have been hard to understand to a census taker who was in a hurry.

I can see on my wife's side, census takers in Florida in different decades were writing down Eduardo, Edward, Ed for a first name and had surname as Henriquez and Enriquez for the same. Her grandmother is from Greece and I always thought spelled her name Catherine because that is what she has on all documents that I've seen.... but I found out it really was Katherine but when she immigrated the US officials wrote it down wrong and she didn't understand or didn't double check.. probably just happy there were no hitches.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2011, 05:21:04 PM »

My FTDNA exact 25-marker match with Mr. Stephens just went to 35/37.

I would pay for an upgrade to 67 markers for a match in this sort of scenario who could get his line back across the Pond, but this man hasn't even responded to my email yet.

So, I guess it is what it is.

The gd of two comes at CDYa/b where he has 37-39 and I have 38-38. That's a fast mutator.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 05:24:50 PM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2011, 01:12:49 AM »

I think you are very close to him, certainly he belongs to your family line.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2011, 07:49:19 AM »

I think you are very close to him, certainly he belongs to your family line.

Thanks! I agree.

I finally heard from the man's daughter, who is the one actually handling the dna testing and the one interested in the family history. She says an upgrade to 67 markers is planned for the future.

Her email came in yesterday evening, but I was busy last night and did not see it until this morning. It says she will send me some family information today. I'm really looking forward to seeing it.
Logged

saphorr
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2011, 12:31:43 PM »

Thanks! I agree.

I finally heard from the man's daughter, who is the one actually handling the dna testing and the one interested in the family history. She says an upgrade to 67 markers is planned for the future.

Her email came in yesterday evening, but I was busy last night and did not see it until this morning. It says she will send me some family information today. I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

Exciting stuff, especially for someone as involved with Y-DNA research as you are to only now get a good match.  Congrats and here's hoping you learn something new and interesting.

The spelling variation is certainly not any kind of red flag.  Any English surname more than a couple of centuries old has variant spelling of some kinds, and people adopted spellings and even pronunciations of their own preference.

One surname in my wife's family is Wreford, originally of Devon.  This is the most common spelling now but you can also find Wreforde, Wreyford, Wreyforde, Wrayford, and Wrayforde, but whatever the DNA might say (and there is no surname project as yet) the name certainly originates in Devon supporting the idea that these are all variant spellings and not independent inventions.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 12:33:03 PM by saphorr » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2011, 07:47:14 AM »

Oh, I've gotten other good matches. The first was a second cousin, once removed. We have an exact 37-marker match. Since our nearest common y-dna ancestor was my great-great-grandfather, that confirmed our descent from him.

Then I got a 65/67 match with a man born in Worcester, England, but whose surname is different from my own. He apparently does not match the others of his surname in their dna project, so I think he could be a Stevens. I'll probably never know, because he is elderly, unhappy about not matching others of his surname, and that whole project is private, viewable only by its administrator. Talk about lame! I can't believe anyone would bother to participate in a project that only the admin can see. But that's another topic.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2011, 11:12:57 AM »

I did hear from my FTDNA 35/37 match (the one with the ph spelling, Stephens). The lady handling the dna testing and genealogy says they can trace their most distant known y-dna ancestor to 1789 and Caswell County, North Carolina, which is one of the northern counties, right on the Virginia border (just south of Danville, Virginia).

My Stevens match from Ancestry has been back in touch with me, as well. It turns out the connection to Connecticut in 1707 was speculative; he can really only get his y-dna line to Pennsylvania and 1795. My family was in that same neck of the woods around that same time.

Neither of these matches looks likely to get me to my immigrant ancestor. My feeling is that we are all descended from the same British Isles immigrant who probably came to Virginia(?) sometime in the late 1600s. By the time you get to 1789, our y-dna line had been here in America for about a hundred years already, or three to four generations: plenty of time to spread and branch out into different areas.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2011, 05:04:54 PM »

Well, my Ancestry.com match has ordered a 67-marker test from FTDNA. I hope our match holds up.
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2011, 05:27:00 PM »

Well, my Ancestry.com match has ordered a 67-marker test from FTDNA. I hope our match holds up.

Great news Rich, fingers crossed.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2011, 06:16:34 PM »

Okay, my Ancestry.com exact 27-marker match guy - who has the same surname as me, remember - got the last of his 67-marker results today.

We are a 63/67 match.

Here are the differences.

CDYa/b

Him = 38-39

Me = 38-38

576

Him = 18

Me = 17

557

Him = 16

Me = 17

534

Him = 13

Me = 14

So what do you think?

Not as close as I had hoped, but still a likely y-dna relative. Here's what FTDNA's Tip chart says:

Tip Report

In comparing 67 markers, the probability that . . .  and . . .  shared a common ancestor within the last...

Comparison Chart
Generations    Percentage

4    9.00%
8    45.94%
12    78.16%
16    93.14%
20    98.17%

24    99.57%
28    99.91%
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 06:17:46 PM by rms2 » Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2011, 08:00:21 PM »

Okay, my Ancestry.com exact 27-marker match guy - who has the same surname as me, remember - got the last of his 67-marker results today.

We are a 63/67 match.

Here are the differences.

CDYa/b

Him = 38-39

Me = 38-38

576

Him = 18

Me = 17

557

Him = 16

Me = 17

534

Him = 13

Me = 14

So what do you think?

Not as close as I had hoped, but still a likely y-dna relative. Here's what FTDNA's Tip chart says:

Tip Report

In comparing 67 markers, the probability that . . .  and . . .  shared a common ancestor within the last...

Comparison Chart
Generations    Percentage

4    9.00%
8    45.94%
12    78.16%
16    93.14%
20    98.17%

24    99.57%
28    99.91%


That's great news.  None of those are slow markers either.  Maybe, 300-800 yrs. to common ancestor?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 08:03:39 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2011, 09:00:50 PM »

This is a Golden Match for you. What are the average number of years between birth events in your Stevens lines?

The reason I ask is that I am wondering if the standard quanity of probability percentage provided by TIP Generation level be at least the SD of +1 or 68.26% instead of the 50 or 95% that is being utilized normally to?

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 19 queries.