Need Help

[brickwall buster]

I need some advice as to how right my logic is! In using DNA to try and break my brick wall the following has happened. After much posting and waiting I was contacted by a fellow that matches me on 27 markers. His was done on 32 by Ancestry and mine was a 37 marker on FTDNA. They state that the MRCA is three generations.

The rest of the story, although there exists a difference in spelling, surnames are the same. Counting back three generations from myself brings me to my brickwall (great grandfather). Also, the line I matched with was very easily traced with good documentation back to the late 1500's but I cannot see how or where my great grandfather fits into the line.

Now my question, based on my logic. Would my great grandfather be an immediate relative to a person on the traceable line around the time of his birth? Could this person be a father or a sibling??

Any body that can give me ideas of what steps I can take to pinpoint this connection would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Brickwall Buster
JJG

R1b1a2a1a1b P312+ P311+ P310+ L49+ L23+ U152- SRY2627- P107- M65- M153- L48- L4- L21- L1-

[aeduna]

Now my question, based on my logic. Would my great grandfather be an immediate relative to a person on the traceable line around the time of his birth? Could this person be a father or a sibling??

I think I understand what you're asking, and no, your great-grandfather does not necessarily have to be their immediate relative - you could have a situation where your great-grandfather's father or more remote relatives was one of their immediate relatives.

So the branch between the two of you could have happened a bit earlier - the MCRA is a statistical rating, and is really just a guide.

[Frederator]

GD of 5 at 32 sounds incompatible w/ a relationship after 1600 to me. Could depend on the specific markers, but I just don't see it.

For my own part, I think y'all need to both upgrade at least up to 67 markers. Mutations are random, even if there is a relatively consistent statistical track record for individual markers. The upshot is that accuracy of matches/TMRCA improves exponentially with each additional panel you test. Thirty-seven markers is "O.K.", but not what I'd call the gold-standard. My own close-matches tend to return more recent TMRCA after the first 37.

Good luck to both of you.

I need some advice as to how right my logic is! In using DNA to try and break my brick wall the following has happened. After much posting and waiting I was contacted by a fellow that matches me on 27 markers. His was done on 32 by Ancestry and mine was a 37 marker on FTDNA. They state that the MRCA is three generations.

The rest of the story, although there exists a difference in spelling, surnames are the same. Counting back three generations from myself brings me to my brickwall (great grandfather). Also, the line I matched with was very easily traced with good documentation back to the late 1500's but I cannot see how or where my great grandfather fits into the line.

Now my question, based on my logic. Would my great grandfather be an immediate relative to a person on the traceable line around the time of his birth? Could this person be a father or a sibling??

Any body that can give me ideas of what steps I can take to pinpoint this connection would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Brickwall Buster
JJG

R1b1a2a1a1b P312+ P311+ P310+ L49+ L23+ U152- SRY2627- P107- M65- M153- L48- L4- L21- L1-

[efgen]

GD of 5 at 32 sounds incompatible w/ a relationship after 1600 to me. Could depend on the specific markers, but I just don't see it.

It's not a GD of 5. FTDNA's 37-marker test and Ancestry's 33-marker test overlap by only 27 markers.

Elise

[Darren]

I deleted several posts that were not helpful for the understanding of the Original Poster. The Poster will need to clarify if the match is a genetic distance of 5 or if only 27 markers were compared out of all markers tested.

-Darren Marin
Family Tree DNA

[brickwall buster]

Original Poster of Thread

I had the FTdna 37 test and he had the Ancestry 32 marker. According to what I just read I match all 27 markers that match into FTDNA. Their claim was that the MRCA (Most recent common ancestor) was three generations and also that our match was within 3 to 6 generations. As stated I am confused somewhat on this, but if these claims were true, would my brickwall (great grandfather) who is three generations back be closely related to a person in his tree in that time period (1825); I can easily trace his family back well beyond that time into France around 1575. I am blocked, and cannot find a father, nor mother for my grandfather. I think that I am correct, because of the similar surnames that I am part of that tree,

JJG

[nathanm]

I had the FTdna 37 test and he had the Ancestry 32 marker. According to what I just read I match all 27 markers that match into FTDNA. Their claim was that the MRCA (Most recent common ancestor) was three generations and also that our match was within 3 to 6 generations. As stated I am confused somewhat on this, but if these claims were true, would my brickwall (great grandfather) who is three generations back be closely related to a person in his tree in that time period (1825); I can easily trace his family back well beyond that time into France around 1575. I am blocked, and cannot find a father, nor mother for my grandfather. I think that I am correct, because of the similar surnames that I am part of that tree,

JJG

There's a reasonable chance you're related along your paternal lines within several generations. But the way Ancestry.com simply lists a single number for the estimated number of generations to a MRCA isn't particularly helpful. It should be a range of generations instead.

You might want to start exploring his tree to find if any of his paternal ancestors were located in the same area as yours in the same time period. If the surnames don't match, that might be the only way to find a likely progenitor, if you are related.