Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Take a 1914 8th Grade Promotion Test

I've seen these online before, but I never expected to see one for Saturday Night Genealogy Fun!

Here is your assignment, if you choose to play along (cue the Mission:  Impossible! music, please!):

1.  Reader Sarah emailed me:  "We pulled real eighth-grade diploma exams from 1902–1914.  In the two Ohio county reports we found, only 100 of 282 kids passed.  They had to spell Constantinople and Marseilles and answer 'Why is tobacco in all its forms more injurious for a boy than for a man?'

"Could make a fun Saturday Night Genealogy Fun prompt:  Take the 15-question quiz and guess whether your ancestors passed.

"Here's the page: https://homeschoolstates.com/research/1914-eighth-grade-exam/."

2.  Take the test and tell us your score.

3.  Which of your ancestors living in 1914 would pass the test?

4.  Share your score and your guesses about your ancestors in your own blog post or in a comment on this blog post, or write a Substack post, Facebook Note, or post in some other social media system.  Please leave a comment with a link on this post so others can find it.

Thank you to reader Sarah for suggesting this.

2.  Here is my score:

I missed the first question, about the largest state, because I did not think about the fact that in 1914 Alaska was not yet a state.  My guess is that's also the question Randy missed.  But would I have gotten the same score at the end of my 8th grade education?  Probably not.  Well, maybe.

3.  I haven't a clue.  I know nothing concrete about the educational levels of my ancestors past my parents.  Using Randy's logic, I would have to base my guesses on whatever was reported in the census in various years.

My paternal grandmother, the earliest born of my grandparents, was 21, married, and a new mother in 1914 (my paternal grandfather was 11, my maternal grandfather was 2, and my maternal grandmother wouldn't be born for 5 more years).  Not counting her, I would be going back to my great-grandparents and further.

This comes under the category of pure speculation.  I don't think it's worth it.

Wordless Wednesday

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: An Ancestor Who Has a Life Event on Hallowe'en

I'm going to have to settle for option 2 for tonight's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun challenge from Randy Seaver.

Here is your assignment, if you choose to play along (cue the Mission:  Impossible! music, please!):

1.  Find an ancestor who has a life event (e.g., born, baptized, married, died, or buried) on Hallowe'en (31 October).

2.  Tell us about him or her — who were his or her parents, spouses, children, occupations, residences, etc.

3.  Share your selected ancestor, the historical life event, and your description of your ancestor in your own blog post or in a comment on this blog post, or write a Substack post, Facebook Note, or post in some other social media system.  Please leave a comment with a link on this post so others can find it.

NOTE:  No luck?  How about a relative?  Or a famous person?

As I wrote above, I have to use option 2, because as far as I can tell, none of my ancestors was born, baptized, married, deceased, or buried on October 31.  But I found a grandaunt who was born on Hallowe'en!

Mary Louise Gauntt, daughter of Thomas Kirkland Gauntt and Jane Dunstan, was born October 31, 1899 in Mount Laurel, Burlington County, New Jersey.  She was the fifth child and third daughter of her parents.  (My grandmother was the second child and oldest daughter in the family.)

Mary married Oliver Goldsmith Holden on August 10, 1919 in Mount Holly, Burlington County, New Jersey.  They had no children.  Mary was a housewife.  Oliver was a printer and later became a minister.

Oliver and Mary lived most of their lives in New Jersey, first in Burlington County and in Cumberland County by 1950.  According to the 1940 U.S. Census, in 1935 they were living in Washington County, Pennsylvania.  At some point they moved to Florida, as Mary died on April 19, 1971 in Hernando County, Florida.  She is buried in Brooksville Cemetery in Brooksville, Hernando County.

What I know about Mary I have learned through research, and so far I have not found a photograph of her.  I don't remember my grandmother mentioning this sister.  But there were ten children in the family!

Wordless Wednesday

Wordless Wednesday

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun: Transcribe and/or Translate a Record on MyHeritage Scribe AI Tool

I'm probably not going to go in the direction Randy Seaver is expecting for this week's episode of Saturday Night Genealogy Fun.

Here is your assignment, if you choose to play along (cue the Mission:  Impossible! music, please!):

1.  MyHeritage introduced the Scribe AI tool to analyze, transcribe, translate, and provide historical context to a record or photographic image in the past year.  Have you used it?

2.  Pick one record image or photograph image from your collection and ask Scribe AI to do its task list for you.  How did it do?

NOTE:  If you cannot access Scribe AI, please use another AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Transkribus) that can transcribe, translate, or analyze a record or photograph image.

3.  Share your selected record or photo image, plus what Scribe AI told you about the image, in your own blog post or in a comment on this blog post, or write a Substack post, Facebook Note, or post on some other social media system.  Please leave a comment with a link on this post so others can find it.

1.  No, I have not used it.

2.  I used ChatGPT.  It was informative, but it contradicted itself.

3.  I have written about the photo bonanza that I received from my sister, which consists of scans of my father's photographs.  I have also written about how my father neglected to identify any of the photos he took.  I have experimented a little with ChatGPT to see what it could tell me about some of the cars my father photographed.  I uploaded this photo and asked, "What type of vehicle is this?"

This is what ChatGPT had to say:

===

The vehicle in the photo appears to be an early-1950s Chevrolet station wagon, most likely a 1953 Chevrolet 210 Handyman or Townsman wagon.

Some identifying features include:

• The single-piece curved windshield and rounded "pontoon" body styling typical of 1953 Chevrolets.
• The large chrome grille with five horizontal "teeth" across the center.
• The round headlights integrated into the front fenders.
• The long roof and two-door wagon body style, with the distinctive rear side windows.
• The chrome side trim running along the body matches Chevrolet styling from that era.

The "June 1964" caption likely indicates when the photograph was taken, not the age of the car. By then, this Chevrolet would have been roughly 10–11 years old, which fits with many families still driving early-1950s cars during the mid-1960s.

While the image isn't sharp enough to distinguish between the 210 Handyman and the Bel Air/Townsman trim levels with certainty, I'm fairly confident it is a 1953 Chevrolet station wagon, rather than a 1954 model (which had a noticeably different grille).

If you're interested, I can also explain how the grille and trim identify it as a 1953 Chevrolet and distinguish it from the 1950–1954 models.

I asked:  What distinguishes a 210 Handyman from a Bel Air/Townsman?

The 1953 Chevrolet 210 Handyman and Bel Air Townsman (often just called the Townsman wagon) shared the same basic body, chassis, and drivetrain, but they differed primarily in trim and interior appointments.

Here are the main differences:

210 Handyman	Bel Air Townsman
Economy model	Upscale model
Less exterior chrome	More chrome trim and Bel Air styling
Simpler interior with plainer upholstery	Better fabrics, more decorative trim, armrests, and additional brightwork
Painted window frames and moldings	More stainless steel moldings around windows and sides
Rubber floor coverings common on some models	Carpet and upgraded interior finishes more common

Exterior clues

The easiest way to tell them apart is by the side trim:

• 210 Handyman: Usually has a single thin chrome strip running along the side with relatively plain styling.
• Bel Air Townsman: Features more elaborate chrome moldings, often including a wider spear or accent trim around the rear quarter panel and window area.

Looking at your photo

Your car has:

• A single, fairly simple side molding running from the front fender toward the rear.
• Minimal chrome ornamentation on the body sides.
• No obvious Bel Air-style sweeping chrome treatment visible around the rear quarter.

Those details make it look more like a Chevrolet 210 Handyman than a Bel Air Townsman.

That said, because the image is somewhat soft and only shows one side of the car, I wouldn't call it a certainty—I'd put the identification at about 70–80% confidence as a 1953 Chevrolet 210 Handyman two-door station wagon. A clearer view of the grille, hood emblem, or rear quarter trim would allow a much more definitive identification.

I asked:  Does this photo make it clearer whether it is a Handyman or a Towmsman?

This close-up helps confirm the year, but it unfortunately doesn't do much to distinguish the trim level.

What it does show clearly:

• The grille has five prominent vertical "teeth" across the center bar, a hallmark of the 1953 Chevrolet. The 1954 Chevrolet grille was substantially different, so this strongly supports the car being a 1953 model.
• The Chevrolet script emblem is visible on the left side of the hood above the grille.
• The hood and front-end styling are consistent with all 1953 passenger-car models, including both the 210 Handyman and the Bel Air Townsman wagons.

What it doesn't show:

• The side trim on the rear quarter panel.
• The rear side window moldings.
• The interior trim.
• Any badging indicating the series.

Those are the features that separate a 210 Handyman from a Bel Air Townsman.

One interesting detail is the California license plate "PMS 138", which is consistent with the photo having been taken in California in 1964, as indicated by the caption.

My assessment

Combining this image with the earlier side view:

• Year: 1953 Chevrolet — very high confidence (95%+).
• Body style: Two-door station wagon — essentially certain.
• Trim level: I still lean toward 210 Handyman, because the side view shows relatively plain side trim rather than the more elaborate Bel Air treatment. However, this front view doesn't provide additional evidence one way or the other.

I'd estimate:

• 1953 Chevrolet 210 Handyman wagon: about 75% probability.
• 1953 Chevrolet Bel Air Townsman wagon: about 25% probability.

A photo showing the rear quarter panel or full side profile in higher resolution would almost certainly settle the question.

I asked:  Does this view help?

Yes—this view is much more informative, and it changes my assessment.

The most significant detail is the broad chrome sweep on the rear quarter panel, extending from behind the rear door toward the tailgate. That is Bel Air-style trim, not the plain treatment used on the 210 Handyman.

Other clues visible here:

• The car is clearly a four-door station wagon, with four side doors plus the tailgate. The Handyman was a two-door wagon, so this alone rules out the Handyman.
• The bright trim around the side windows and the more elaborate rear-quarter molding are consistent with Chevrolet's higher-trim wagons.
• The front end still matches a 1953 Chevrolet.

So this is not a 210 Handyman.

The remaining question is whether it is a 150 Handyman, 210 Townsman, or Bel Air Townsman, since Chevrolet offered multiple wagon configurations in 1953. Based on the extensive side trim and upscale appearance, I think it is most likely a 1953 Chevrolet Bel Air Townsman four-door station wagon.

My confidence would now be approximately:

• 1953 Chevrolet Bel Air Townsman (4-door): ~85–90%
• 1953 Chevrolet 210 Townsman (4-door): ~10–15%

One additional detail that supports the Bel Air identification is the large painted insert outlined by chrome on the rear quarter panel. That decorative treatment was characteristic of the Bel Air series and was intended to echo the Bel Air sedan's distinctive side styling.

This third photograph is substantially more diagnostic than the first two, because it shows the full side trim and confirms the four-door body style, eliminating the Handyman entirely.

I asked:  What distinguishes a 210 Townsman from a Bel Air Townsman?

This gets into one of the quirks of Chevrolet's 1953 lineup: there actually wasn't a 210 Townsman in 1953.

The station wagon lineup for 1953 was:

• 150 Handyman – 2-door, economy trim.
• 210 Handyman – 2-door, mid-level trim.
• Bel Air Townsman – 4-door, top-of-the-line trim.

So if your car is indeed a four-door wagon, the only factory possibility is the Bel Air Townsman.

The confusion arises because in later years (1954–1957), Chevrolet offered four-door wagons in both the 210 and Bel Air series, and "Townsman" was used differently. But for 1953, the four-door wagon was marketed as the Bel Air Townsman.

Comparing the 1953 wagons

Model	Doors	Trim level
150 Handyman	2	Basic
210 Handyman	2	Mid-level
Bel Air Townsman	4	Premium

Looking again at your latest photo:

• It clearly has four side doors.
• It has the Bel Air rear quarter panel trim, with the contrasting sweep outlined in chrome.
• The window moldings are bright-finished rather than plain.

Those are exactly what one would expect on a 1953 Bel Air Townsman.

I would now identify the car as a 1953 Chevrolet Bel Air Townsman station wagon with fairly high confidence.

One small point of clarification: Chevrolet also sold a 1953 210 Beauville, which was a nine-passenger wagon with three seats. From the side, a Beauville looks very similar to a Townsman. If your family car seated six and had only two rows of seats, it would be a Townsman; if it had a fold-down third seat and extra side windows in the cargo area, it would be a Beauville. The exterior trim on the two models was quite similar.

===

So ChatGPT apparently did identify the vehicle, but some of the stupidity along the way was highly annoying.

It told me, "A clearer view of the grille, hood emblem, or rear quarter trim would allow a much more definitive identification."  Yet when I provided a photo of the grille, I was told that didn't help.  Then why did ChatGPT suggest it?

When I asked what distinguishes a 210 Townsman from a Bel Air Townsman, after having previously said things about a 1953 210 Townsman, suddenly ChatGPT says there was no 210 Townsman in 1953.  Say what?

Yes, I am much further along than I would have been without using ChatGPT.  But will people who blindly accept what is said the first time without asking more questions and being more critical actually be better off with information riddled with misstatements?  Will they include caveats about how there might be mistakes?

What Would Mary Lou Have Been Like at 88?

Today is Mary Lou's birthday, and her daughter, Laurie (also known as my half-sister from my father's first marriage), is here with a guest post.

===

Today we celebrate the birth of my mom, Marylou Bowen Sellers James.  She was born October 16, 1938 and would have been 88.

Very recently, I had the opportunity to visit with my cousin Linda.  She is the daughter of my mother’s brother, Bobby.  Bobby was Mom’s only sibling and was ten years older.  He was married to Jean and they had four children, Bobby Jr., Linda, Douglas, and Mark.

My Uncle Bob and Aunt Jean got divorced, then Jean and the kids moved to California, so there was little opportunity to see my cousins in my younger years.  My mother and her brother were not very close.  He passed away at 54, and I only remember a few occasions that we were all together.

My meeting with Linda was significant, as we had not seen each other since we were very young.  I wish I could say we just picked up where we left off, but the truth is we only have snippets of events where we were together.  Regardless, it was enlightening and one of the highlights of our vacation.

We started with cocktail hour and quickly jumped to talking about Marylou and Jean, both of us sharing stories about being raised by pretty strong-willed and maybe just a little bit crazy women.  We filled in some timeline blanks to the best of our ability and made sense of which states we were each in at particular times in our lives.

I particularly enjoyed Linda’s stories about our grandmother, Louise Gaynor Bowen Toppa, and her relationship with my cousins, although some of the stories surprised me.  Apparently my cousins had the young, peppy, and adventurous grandmom and I had the stoic, serious grandmom!

Of course, the grandmom I had was wonderful and loving, taking me on trips to various little towns between New Jersey and Rhode Island.  Grandmom would have me for long periods of time and we would explore Rhode Island with Grandpop Tony.  Then she moved to New Jersey, then to California, where I discovered that she was quite a golfer and she introduced me to shuffleboard.  She taught me about antiques and how to knit, and tried to share her love for postcard collecting.  She let me wear ALL her costume jewelry AT ONCE, so I could sing to her while standing on the ottoman in her living room.  She was a treasure and I’m not complaining, but it sounded like my cousins got the crawling around on the floor playing with toys grandmom, and, I have to admit, I was just a little envious . . . for a blink.

Which brings us back to the birthday girl.  I already knew that Marylou was a handful, often defying her mother.  Marylou shared plenty of those stories with me, adding that Grandmom was kind of strait-laced and always wanted her to "act like a lady", something that my mother definitely was not!

Over the course of the cousin reunion, Linda and I were slowly putting together each of our timelines, where we lived and where our timelines overlapped.  I mentioned that I lived in so many places because my mother had wanderlust and, by my mother’s account, our grandmother ended up living in so many places because she was chasing after my mother.

That’s when I was enlightened!  Linda stopped me in my tracks when she said, "Grandmom wasn’t chasing after Marylou, she was worried about YOU!"

This story is bittersweet.

There are so many versions of a life story.  Sometimes you hear a version that makes sense.

Thank you, Louise Gaynor Bowen Toppa.

Thank you, Marylou Bowen Sellers James.

Thank you, Cousin Linda.

Wordless Wednesday

Wordless Wednesday