Validity of Sources

[bperboy]

A quick question related to sources: if I have a digital scan of a letter, say written in Civil-War era, is that a valid source? Do I need to actually have the letter in my possession?

I wonder this, because it will be possible for me to have documents (birth, death, marriage certificates, letters, articles, etc.) on file on my computer, but not necessarily have a physical copy. I guess I'd just like to know how other people handle this issue.

[SGilbert]

IMHO, it's as valid as you consider it to be. There are no laws in genealogy.

I see no need to 'have' the physical letter, book, plaque, note, etc. for the info to be credible.

[Andrew-Bede Allsop]

Originally Posted by bperboy

A quick question related to sources: if I have a digital scan of a letter, say written in Civil-War era, is that a valid source? Do I need to actually have the letter in my possession?

I wonder this, because it will be possible for me to have documents (birth, death, marriage certificates, letters, articles, etc.) on file on my computer, but not necessarily have a physical copy. I guess I'd just like to know how other people handle this issue.

As far as I am concerned digital scans are certainly valid sources, after all they are really more reliable than hand written copies as there is no possibility of third party mistakes in copying being introduced as there are in, for example, copies of birth certificates etc. obtained in the traditional way. If you really want/need a 'hard copy' simply print out the digital image.

[Donald W. Moore]

Originally Posted by SGilbert

There are no laws in genealogy.

Actually there are--if you choose to follow them--at least in the professional community. But they are better described as "best practices." Read the intro to ESM's Evidence Explained for a thorough discussion. A digital image is certainly a valid source, although a derivative: i.e., not the original, but derived from it. No different than a microfilm image.