Machackemeck Dutch Reformed Church, Orange Co., New York - marriages 1737-1825; LDS computer printout Batch M50649-1, page 22, surnames COLE to CUDDEBACK.

Transcription and notes

The christening batch, found and then rendered unnecessary - 2026-10-21

The open question was where the Machackemeck CHRISTENINGS were extracted to, since film 008133224 holds only the marriages. Both halves of the answer turned out to be cheap.

Finding it: the batch number is the congregation, the prefix is the record type

This entry's batch is M50649-1. The catalog already contained the proof of the pattern without anyone having stated it: C50786-1 is Clove Valley DRC christenings ([F.63]) and M50786-1 is Clove Valley DRC marriages ([F.64]) - one number, one congregation, two record types. So C50649-1 was a prediction, not a search.

It is real, and the FamilySearch catalog record (koha:4535) confirms it in its own note:

C-50649-1. Machackemack is now known as Deerpark. Extracted from book no.: 974.7 B4ne vol. 5.

Film 883821 item 9, DGS 7827626 - and that reel is one the catalog has already drawn from: [F.62]'s Walpack batch C50650-1 is on it too. New reel record: [films/film.7827626.yaml].

Why it then did not need to be read

974.7 B4ne vol. 5 is [M.14] - NYG&B Collections Vol. V (1913), Vosburgh - which the catalog holds in full as a searchable PDF. The printout is a DERIVATIVE of that book. Reading it could add nothing the book does not have, and would lose Vosburgh's apparatus.

So the question was answered from the book instead. Vosburgh's index, book p. 296, read at 3x, gives the entire Cooper entry as:

Cooper, Daniel, 271 ** Isaac, 24**

Two Cooper individuals in a 349-page volume covering the Walpeck, Minisink Valley AND Machackemeck registers. Daniel appears once, at book p. 271 - this marriage - and in no baptism as a father.

=> No child of Daniel and Janneke was baptised in any of the three sister congregations, 1716-1830. That is the verification the maintainer asked for, and it is broader than the film sweep would have been: it covers all three registers at once, and it rests on the volume's own curated index rather than on an OCR pass over a 389-page scan.

And it confirms the batch-header diagnosis independently

The christening batch claims 1716-1827. But in [M.14] the Machackemeck baptisms run only 1803-1827; the 1716-1816 baptisms are Minisink Valley. So this batch, like the marriage batch, labels several sister congregations with one name.

[p.1] had already reasoned to exactly that conclusion from the marriage side - "the batch extracted from a film or volume covering several of these sister congregations and took one name for the whole" - as an inference. The christening batch's catalog note now names the volume it was extracted from, which turns that inference into something with a source behind it.

The Kuyper / Kuiper sweep - answered 2026-10-21, and the answer is a true null

The Cooper null on page 22 only ever covered the ENGLISH spelling. "Cooper" is a trade name, and its Dutch cognate is kuiper (a barrel-maker), so in a Dutch Reformed register the same family can be written Kuyper, Kuiper or Cuyper - which sort nowhere near COOPER. The batch had to be checked in those slots before the null meant anything.

How this batch is ordered, established by cropping page 22 at 2x and page 38 at 3x: entries run alphabetically by a STANDARDIZED surname, each group opened by a starred heading. When the actual spelling equals the standard, the data sits on the starred line itself (*COOPER 3 JUL 1757 DANIEL ...). When it differs, the starred heading stands alone and the variant spellings are listed beneath it (*CONSALIS over CONSALES; *COPP over COP; *KUYKENDALL over KUYKENDAL, KUIKENDAL, COYKENDAL, CUYKENDAL, CUYKENDALL, CUYKENDALE).

Both candidate slots are empty. KUIPER sorts before KUYKENDALL (I before Y) and KUYPER after it, so both fall on page 38 or at its break into page 39. Page 38 opens *KREIS / KRASS and goes straight to *KUYKENDALL, with nothing between; its Kuykendall group ends at CUYKENDALE 20 MAR 182[?] MARJERY H JAMES HORTON 00449-5 and the rest of the page is blank; page 39 opens *LABER / LABAR. There is no *KUIPER, no *KUYPER and no *CUYPER heading anywhere in the sequence. Nor was one filed as a Cooper variant: *COOPER carries its single entry and *COPP follows immediately.

=> Daniel x Janneke, 3 July 1757, is the only Cooper-or-Kuyper marriage in batch M50649-1, and the null now holds for the Dutch forms of the name as well as the English one.

Pages examined, both downloaded at full resolution and filed (RULE ZERO-C):

• Church/Dutch Reformed/Dutch Reformed - Machackemeck, Orange, NY/LDS computer printout Batch M50649-1 - Machackemeck DRC marriages 1737-1825 page 38 - KREIS and KUYKENDALL groups (image 272).jpg - 3008x2468
• Church/Dutch Reformed/Dutch Reformed - Machackemeck, Orange, NY/LDS computer printout Batch M50649-1 - Machackemeck DRC marriages 1737-1825 page 39 - LABER LAMBERT and L groups (image 273).jpg - 3008x2770

Two corrections this sweep forced, both from reading a page number off a whole-page view

1. The page numbers were wrong. Image 272 was recorded as page 58 and image 273 as page 59. Cropped at 3x they are 38 and 39. A 3 read as a 5 at roughly 3x downscale - exactly the RULE ZERO-B failure, on a TYPEWRITTEN page, which is the case this entry's own read_zoom had argued was safe.
2. The film's page-to-image ratio was wrong, and only because of correction 1. The caveat in films/film.008133224.yaml said page numbers advance 2+ per image, inferred from 22->58 over 16 frames. The truth is exactly one page per image - 22->38 over 16 frames, and 31->96 over 65 frames on the Charleston batch, which had always said the same thing and was disbelieved because it disagreed with the misread.

2026-10-21, later still - CHECKED. There is no Machackemeck christening batch on this film

Maintainer, correcting my downgrade: "It's good to check Machackemeck anyway, just to verify the lack of children." ⇒ Right, and the distinction is the catalog's own: "we assume no children" and "we searched and found none" are different states, and only the second is evidence. FamilySearch's Children (0) is an absence of entries on a tree, not a search.

So it was checked, and the answer is a structural one. Film 008133224 is not a register at all - it is a mixed compilation of unrelated LDS printout batches from different states, now recorded at films/film.008133224.yaml:

⇒ The Machackemeck content on this reel is MARRIAGES ONLY, bracketed by South Carolina batches on both sides. There is no Machackemeck births-or-christenings batch here to sweep. That is a coverage answer, not a null: the christenings would be on a different film under a C-prefix batch, if they were ever extracted.

And the reel's titles are all wrong, which is worth carrying: the collection calls it New Jersey, Church Records; individual image arks are served under "St. Helena Parish. Birth Records 1683-1822" (South Carolina); and the page itself is headed Orange County, NEW YORK. Three different places on one reel - a textbook case for the standing rule never to trust a FamilySearch viewer title as an inventory.

2026-10-21, later - the christening sweep is DOWNGRADED, and the maintainer's reason is the right one

Maintainer: "We think Daniel had no children with Janneke, so no christenings are expected, right?" - correct, and it reframes the task. Daniel was 62 at the 1757 marriage and Janneke a widow of similar age; FamilySearch records Children (0) for that couple and the catalog records none. ⇒ No christening of a child of Daniel and Janneke should be expected at Machackemeck or anywhere else.

So what was the sweep for? Two things, and both are now explicitly disambiguation-grade rather than goal-bearing:

1. Other Coopers at Machackemeck - who would be a different family, of interest for the catalog's disambiguation work rather than for Daniel Sr's line.
2. KUYPER / KUIPER - per [[feedback_dutch_records_check_kuyper_for_cooper]], because a Dutch register may file our surname under its Dutch form. This one is independent of whether Daniel had children.

⇒ Priority dropped from medium to low. The part that actually mattered - the marriages, where Daniel himself appears - is complete.

What was reached on the film, and where it stopped

Film 008133224, 358 images. The marriage batch M50649-1 runs surname-ordered across roughly images 256-276: image 256 = page 22 (COLE-CUDDEBACK), image 270 = J, image 272 = page 58 (KRESS, then many KUYKENDALL/CUYKENDALL), image 273 = L (LARUE onward), image 276 = M.

The KUYPER check is INCOMPLETE and must not be read as a null. Page 58 ends with CUYKENDALL and the next page opens at LARUE, so a KUYPER entry would sit in that gap - and the gap could not be read at a usable magnification. The browse viewer's Download control does not open its dialog (unlike the record-attached viewer, where it works), and the browser's own zoom re-crops at screen resolution instead of magnifying, which is exactly the failure RULE ZERO-C describes. Nothing was recorded from it.

2026-10-21 - HAVE THE MACHACKEMECK RECORDS BEEN SWEPT FOR OTHER COOPERS? Partly

MARRIAGES 1737-1825: YES, and the answer is complete. This printout is in surname order, and page 22 runs COLE to CUDDEBACK - the whole of C. It carries exactly one COOPER line, the 1757 Daniel x Janneke entry above. ⇒ There are no other Cooper marriages at Machackemeck in the batch's whole 1737-1825 range. A surname-ordered page is one of the few places a null is genuinely strong.

CHRISTENINGS, BIRTHS AND DEATHS: NO - and the gap is bigger than it looks. The catalog's [M.14] sweep covered Vosburgh's volume, and Vosburgh's Machackemeck section is only 1803-1827 (his contents table: Machackemeck baptisms 231-264 = 1803-1827, marriages 278-280 = 1804-1825). ⇒ Machackemeck for the whole eighteenth century is NOT in Vosburgh at all, so the existing "2 Cooper entries in 349 pages" sweep says nothing about it. The LDS batches do cover it.

The FamilySearch place search cannot do this job. "Machackemeck" is not a standardised place in their gazetteer, so a q.anyPlace=Machackemeck query degrades to fuzzy matching across Orange County and returns hundreds of thousands of 20th-century results. Tried 2026-10-21 and abandoned. The film is the way: it is surname-ordered, so the answer is one page per batch.

Data from the document [verbatim]

Header, three lines:

DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, MACHACKEMECK, ORANGE, NEW YORK MARRIAGES (1737-1825) BATCH # M50649-1 PAGE 22 SURNAME MARR. DATE GIVEN NAME REL SPOUSE/PARENTS AGES SER NUMBER

The Cooper entry, in surname order between CONSALES and COPP:

*COOPER 3 JUL 1757 DANIEL W JANNEKE WESBROEK 00105-6

Neighbouring entries on the same page, for context on the column meanings - "REL" is the relationship of the SPOUSE named, H for husband and W for wife:

CONSALES 10 JUL 1750 DANIEL W ELIZABETH VAN VLIET 00045-3 COP 30 MAY 1825 GEORGE W RACHEL KITTLE 00460-4 KROM 9 J DEBRA H JOSEP WESBROEK 00097-0 COLE 16 A SARAH H ALEXANDER WESTBROOK 00403-3

What kind of document this is

An LDS computer printout - the same genre as [F.62] (Walpack, Batch C50650-1) and [F.63] (Clove Valley). The batch prefix follows the usual convention: C for christenings, M for marriages. It is a controlled extraction from a register, not the register and not an original.

Two place discrepancies, both recorded and neither resolved

1. The printout says ORANGE CO., NEW YORK. FamilySearch's own index of it says "Sussex, New Jersey". The index contradicts the document it was made from.
2. The printout says MACHACKEMECK. [M.14] - Vosburgh's 1913 published transcription - places the same 3 July 1757 marriage in the MINISINK VALLEY section at book p. 271. Vosburgh's own contents table puts Minisink Valley marriages at 1738-1797 (book pp. 265-278) and Machackemeck marriages at 1804-1825 (pp. 278-280) - so on Vosburgh's arrangement a 1757 marriage cannot be Machackemeck.

See [p.1] for what follows from that.

Not found here

The printout gives no officiant, no licence, no widow/widower status and no witnesses - all of which [M.14] carries for the same marriage.