Document J.605 · newspaper · transcription: partial
The Belvidere Intelligencer (Belvidere, Warren Co., N.J.), 6 February 1851, page 3 column 2, DIED column - notice of John Cooper, M.D., of Easton, Pa. Supplied as a scan by the Warren County Library, 30 October 2026.
- repository
- Warren County Library, Richard D. Gardner Branch, 2 Shotwell Drive, Belvidere, N.J.
People named
| As written | Role | Identified as | What this document says |
|---|---|---|---|
| JOHN COOPER, M. D. | deceased | John Cooper Sr 1765–1851 | death: 2 Feb 1851, Easton, Northampton Co., Pa. occupation: physician (M. D.) |
What this document records
Note
HE IS John Cooper Sr DR. JOHN COOPER SR., AND THIS IS THE DEATH NOTICE OF THE MAINTAINER'S OWN DIRECT ANCESTOR. Born 24 March 1765 at Long Hill, died 2 February 1851 at Easton, Northampton Co., Pennsylvania; Doctor of Medicine; GRANDSON OF Daniel Cooper Sr DANIEL SR via Daniel Cooper Jr Daniel Jr, and generation -5 of the documented patrilineal chain set out at Living. "In the 8[7?] year" against a birth of 24 March 1765 means he was 85 years and 10 months old and in his 86th year - so the notice is a year out, which is ordinary for the period, and [J.606]'s "aged about 85 years" is exact. THE DATE: his file carries 2 February 1851 from the family Bible [B.58]. "Sunday evening last" before a Thursday paper agrees with the 2nd; [J.606] says "on the 3rd inst." The one-day spread is recorded, not resolved. WHAT THIS ENTRY SAID THIS MORNING, struck: that he was "NOT a Cooper of the Warren County family this catalog follows" and was "filed so the citation is not ordered twice". Both sentences were produced by the misread digit. AS WITH [J.604], the index gave the paper as the BELVIDERE APOLLO; the masthead says INTELLIGENCER. The date and page were right.
Transcription and notes
Data from the document [verbatim]
Died,
In Easton, on Sunday evening last, JOHN COOPER, M. D., in the 8
[7?]year of his age.
The MARRIED column immediately above, recorded because it is on the same scan and names Warren County places:
At Hope, on the 1st inst., by Rev. C. S. Vanclere, PETER SHAFER Jr., of Oxford, to MARY HOFFMAN of Knowlton.
What it is - CORRECTED THE SAME DAY
It is [p.27] Dr. John Cooper Sr., the maintainer's own direct ancestor. The paragraph below was written this morning on the strength of a misread digit and is kept, struck, because the mechanism is worth seeing: a fifty-year error in one numeral turned a known man into a stranger and produced a confident, fully-reasoned dismissal.
~~It is not a Cooper of the Warren County family this catalog follows, on anything the notice says. "Sunday evening last", in a paper of 6 February 1851, puts the death on the Sunday preceding that issue. No date is computed here: the masthead carries no weekday (unlike the 1868 issue at [J.604], which prints "FRIDAY"), so the calendar step from "Sunday evening last" to a day of the month is left undone rather than guessed.
⇒ Filed as a negative result with a positive cost: one of the five obituaries ordered from the Warren County Library turned out to concern an unrelated man, which is worth recording so that the citation is not ordered a second time.~~
How the error was caught, because the route matters more than the fix
Not by re-reading this entry. A re-reading would have reproduced it, which is the standing lesson about stale items applied to a transcription: the figure was already read twice, and both readings were of the same 200 dpi render of a photocopied microfilm page. Two passes over impoverished pixels are one reading, not two.
It was caught sideways, while searching newspapers.com for an unrelated man ([p.129] John D. Cooper) in a form the maintainer had suggested - dropping the middle initial. That search surfaced the New Jersey Herald of 8 February 1851 ([J.606]), whose far better image reports the same Easton death as "aged about 85 years". An eighty-five-year-old where this entry had a thirty-seven-year-old is not a discrepancy to reconcile; it is a flat contradiction, and it sent the reader back to the plate at 400 dpi, where the digit is an 8.
Two independent papers are worth more than two magnifications of one image. The second paper cost nothing - it was already on the screen.