Age inaccuracy + weird age listing

[PianosiDiFano]

My third great grandfather was Giulio figlio di Giacomo Biondi, born in the parish of San Cesareo, Fano, Italy.

According to his death record, as well as his birth place, they list his birth YEAR, the record taker says he was born in 1813. Because it is a church record I have no idea who gave the information, or why they did not list his mother's name as was common practice, in that area, by that time.

I cannot find someone born in that year, but I can find a Giulio, figlio di Giacomo Biondi, born in that parish in January 1810. I know this child lived until at least 1814 when registry there ended, so I assume it is likely he lived to adulthood.

Both the parish he lived in and the parish he died in where not very large, and the surname Biondi is not exceedingly common there. I cannot find anyone else by these specific two names.

Despite having made the connection, and having found some other evidence supporting it, I am still uncertain.

How common was it to have age inaccuracy like this? Usually, I see people's age listed as older than they actually were, rarely younger. Was it normal to write the year instead of the age of the person (ie. d'èta 70)

Would appreciate any thoughts on this one!

[darkerhorse]

It's entirely within reason.

[rlw254]

+/- 5 years is very common at this time. Sometimes even more. On death records I've seen discrepancies of over 20 years.

[PianosiDiFano]

Thanks, glad to hear another opinion on this one!

Something about this one seemed slightly more strange, however I have often seen discrepancies like this before, my lack of documents made this one feel shaker!
Thanks for your help!

[PippoM]

If I understand, the record states he was "born in 1813" rather than he was "xx years"?
It's really weird...can you show us the record?

[PianosiDiFano]

If I understand, the record states he was "born in 1813" rather than he was "xx years"?
It's really weird...can you show us the record?

Hi Pippo, this is one of the things that I found so abnormal about this record. Because I have not seen any other records written by this particular priest, I am not sure if this was his standard way of recording age.

IMG_4399.jpg

Here is a copy of the record, thanks for offering your eye on this one!

[PippoM]

Yes, it is not usual.
And I agree that it is likely that your Giulio is the one born in 1810.

[darkerhorse]

To gauge accuracy, it's helpful to identify who the informant was. You'd expect a close relative to be more accurate.

[darkerhorse]

Same with other information like occupation and mother's surname.

[PianosiDiFano]

To gauge accuracy, it's helpful to identify who the informant was. You'd expect a close relative to be more accurate.

I definitely agree, that's why I generally prefer civil registration records, because they recorded such information. Sadly, this town's civil office only releases records for legal purposes, meaning its contents are locked away for the foreseeable future.
I assume by this location that the informant was probably one of his sons, and from my information both from that time, and today, it is not uncommon to be unclear as to your parents' age, most people I know could only say a vague decennial to which their parents belong (ie. I think they are about 50 ish.) I imagine that is likely what happens in situations like these.
Unfortunately this priest chose to only record patronym, it is possible the informant did not know the mother, however also possible the record taker simply did not ask.

Thank you all again for your much appreciated help on this!

[darkerhorse]

I also try to cross-check information with documents that are self-reported, as with marriages or when a father reports a birth. You'd think he'd know his own age, occupation, parents' names, etc.