Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FGS Matches

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rucksack
    replied
    Sad, but more often than not, too true.

    Leave a comment:


  • wighty44
    replied
    <Puzzlement mode on>
    Recently a second FGS match was posted to my mtDNA Matches listing. Yet, there is no way to contact this person as they have chosen to remain incommunicado...

    My initial FGS match did provide an email address, but has not responded to either of my two contact emails.

    I am somewhat amazed that someone would go through the expense to have the FGS test performed, yet seemingly have no desire to communicated with those who may have a possible genealogical relation to them...
    <Puzzlement mode off>

    Leave a comment:


  • Deirwha
    replied
    contacts

    Originally posted by wighty44 View Post
    As a matter of curiosity, did you contact that person, and did they respond?

    I contacted (via direct email), my FGS match, and after 4 days haven't gotten any reply.

    Perhaps I'm a bit impatient, but I would think after going to the effort of having one's DNA analyzed to this degree, and the cost involved, there would be some excitement (translated into reponsiveness) associated with having a FGS match.
    My public match and I were working on contacting each other almost simultaneously on the day we learned of our match. We have exchanged communications and rather enjoyed the contact although neither one of us has pushed that further than a couple exchanges (and my match has seen my paper trail also). At this point there is a limited amount we can do since there is probably at least a generation between what the paper trail shows and the common ancestor. Hopefully time and good chance will turn that missing link up. I have also exchanged with another who maintains the profile privately. It was courteous, but understanding that person's needs for privacy I have not followed up further I expect that person would quickly want to set the boundaries in place. One must understand and respect each other's boundaries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deirwha
    replied
    Thank you

    Originally posted by Bill Hurst View Post
    Hi,

    I haven't received a private message, so let me comment here. I don't know much if anything about T1b, but in general there is a lot of difference in the importance of the various mutations. In K, which I know a little about, if two people differ at position 497, their common ancestor was probably much more than 10,000 years ago. But if they differ at position 309, they could be siblings. Also, a haplogroup- or subclade-defining mutation in one place might just be a recent random mutation someplace else. Understanding all this is why they pay me the big bucks. Oh wait....

    Bill Hurst

    That is entirely consistent with the analysis I have seen of my T1b by a T expert. And the addition of a private mutation found thus far only in 3, one public and one privately maintained. Our common ancestor likely lived in the Bahamas toward the end of the 18th century. There are others out there who have not taken their FGS, but who if they did would likely match also. It would be interesting to see if the private mutation showed up. There are 3 others who match on both HVR 1 and 2 but if their FGS matches or is close to matching it is not being reported as a match. Some of this comes down to the standard of comparison by which a company decides a configuration of mutations will be called a match v. will not be called a match. For instance, it is my understanding, and I may be wrong about this, that the 3 who matched me on HVR 1 and 2 but not FGS could be as close as matching on everything but the private marker and they would not be considered a match by FT DNA. This is ok with me. I accept the rules of the game as long as I understand what they are.

    I appreciate you taking the time to provide an explanation. I had not been going to ask since there was already an analysis I had seen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Hurst
    replied
    Originally posted by rucksack View Post
    May I suggest a PM to Bill Hurst? http://forums.familytreedna.com/member.php?u=412

    He would be the most well versed person that I can think of on these pages.
    Hi,

    I haven't received a private message, so let me comment here. I don't know much if anything about T1b, but in general there is a lot of difference in the importance of the various mutations. In K, which I know a little about, if two people differ at position 497, their common ancestor was probably much more than 10,000 years ago. But if they differ at position 309, they could be siblings. Also, a haplogroup- or subclade-defining mutation in one place might just be a recent random mutation someplace else. Understanding all this is why they pay me the big bucks. Oh wait....

    Bill Hurst

    Leave a comment:


  • wighty44
    replied
    Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
    I have at this point a single FGS match.
    As a matter of curiosity, did you contact that person, and did they respond?

    I contacted (via direct email), my FGS match, and after 4 days haven't gotten any reply.

    Perhaps I'm a bit impatient, but I would think after going to the effort of having one's DNA analyzed to this degree, and the cost involved, there would be some excitement (translated into reponsiveness) associated with having a FGS match.

    Leave a comment:


  • rucksack
    replied
    Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
    Thanks. That is my understanding also. I also understand there is a heirarchy of FGS results from the least distinguishing to the most within my T1b. I have a "private" mutation that is not counted in the haplogrouping I don't believe. It is way complicated for me and so I rely on an analysis I have seen from an individual I trust implicitly for an understanding of my match and that some mutations are more significant than others at arriving at a match. I did not, however, get that from FT DNA. I have not talked to FT DNA about it, although I have to the project administrator. I think I will go to my room now, having succeeded in confusing an issue I was hoping to help clear up.
    May I suggest a PM to Bill Hurst? http://forums.familytreedna.com/member.php?u=412

    He would be the most well versed person that I can think of on these pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deirwha
    replied
    Originally posted by rucksack View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, any of the 309 possibilities fall into that same category that I had originally mentioned.

    The explanation still hold true {I believe}

    If it was 315 or nearly anything else, the above would not apply.
    Thanks. That is my understanding also. I also understand there is a heirarchy of FGS results from the least distinguishing to the most within my T1b. I have a "private" mutation that is not counted in the haplogrouping I don't believe. It is way complicated for me and so I rely on an analysis I have seen from an individual I trust implicitly for an understanding of my match and that some mutations are more significant than others at arriving at a match. I did not, however, get that from FT DNA. I have not talked to FT DNA about it, although I have to the project administrator. I think I will go to my room now, having succeeded in confusing an issue I was hoping to help clear up.

    Leave a comment:


  • rucksack
    replied
    Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
    I list 309.1C. I do not list 309.2C. She does. Sorry for the confusion but I typed 309.1C instead of 309.2C and did not catch it as I typed.
    If I'm not mistaken, any of the 309 possibilities fall into that same category that I had originally mentioned.

    The explanation still hold true {I believe}

    If it was 315 or nearly anything else, the above would not apply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deirwha
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat View Post
    You do seem to list 309.1C in your signature as one of your mutations.

    I'm formerly T5, now T2, and know of one person who is just one private mutation away from me of being a perfect match. Still FTDNA shows me having no FGS matches.

    John
    I list 309.1C. I do not list 309.2C. She does. Sorry for the confusion but I typed 309.1C instead of 309.2C and did not catch it as I typed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
    I went back and checked both Rucksack's comment and my results against those of my match and I do not have 309.1c and she did. But the FGS was considered a match.
    You do seem to list 309.1C in your signature as one of your mutations.

    I'm formerly T5, now T2, and know of one person who is just one private mutation away from me of being a perfect match. Still FTDNA shows me having no FGS matches.

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Deirwha
    replied
    That explanation works for me

    Originally posted by Enodoch View Post
    In this thread, on 2/23 (#7) it seems that you got at least a partial answer from rucksack.
    I went back and checked both Rucksack's comment and my results against those of my match and I do not have 309.1c and she did. But the FGS was considered a match.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by wighty44 View Post
    I doubt it has anything to do with LA... Just when I think I'm beginning to understand something I find conflicting information.

    On One hand, I have Darren's reply to my email questions about FGS matches (also posted here); and yet, I read that an FTDNA customer has a FGS match except for HVR2...

    Either something in the matching criteria has changed, or an error was made. Regardless, I'd sure would appreciate someone from FTDNA investigating your situation and responding here, because something does not mesh...
    In this thread, on 2/23 (#7) it seems that you got at least a partial answer from rucksack.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deirwha
    replied
    Originally posted by wighty44 View Post
    Either something in the matching criteria has changed, or an error was made. Regardless, I'd sure would appreciate someone from FTDNA investigating your situation and responding here, because something does not mesh...
    I looked carefully at the work up on the FGS of both me and my match again. Not every mutation is mentioned. I suspect in determining haplogroups, as mentioned previously by Tomcat, or matches for that matter, not every mutation is as determinative as another. I know of at least one mutation that varies from mother to daughter. I also am aware of private mutations that are not considered in the haplogroup but may be in the matching. And there are other things out there like "shadow" mutations.
    I suspect the answer that reconciles the information you received with my facts is that the difference in mutation is not significant from the point of view of matching and so ours is an exact match of those mutations considered in determining a match. This is just a guess on my part, a notion someone from FT DNA could of course disabuse me of and go on to explain the discrepancy. It is the only idea I have for reconciling the two communications, again, not having been privy to the email communication in full to gain context.

    Leave a comment:


  • wighty44
    replied
    Originally posted by Deirwha View Post
    touch confused here. ... My FGS match who is classified into the same T1b as I am is not an exact match on HVR2...
    I doubt it has anything to do with LA... Just when I think I'm beginning to understand something I find conflicting information.

    On One hand, I have Darren's reply to my email questions about FGS matches (also posted here); and yet, I read that an FTDNA customer has a FGS match except for HVR2...

    Either something in the matching criteria has changed, or an error was made. Regardless, I'd sure would appreciate someone from FTDNA investigating your situation and responding here, because something does not mesh...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X