Over the years, I’ve published several posts about items as I found them in the search for more information about my twice-over 5th-great-grandfather, David Averitt. Initially, I thought I had struck gold when I found items in Pitt County for a David Averitt who died in 1808 and had several children, including a daughter named Seley. (My David had a daughter named Selah) Later, I found the will for MY David Averitt in Craven County in 1828, which obviously ruled out the one who died in 1808 in Pitt County.
I have continued tracking Averitts (sometimes spelled Averett, Avett, Everett, even Avery). I have many of my data points summarized in a Google Sheet. [Tracing the Averitt Family of Beaufort, Craven, and Pitt Counties]
Yesterday, a fellow researcher, Robert Paramore of Beaufort County Genealogical Society, passed along a deed with a note written on the back that he came across in the William Blount Rodman Papers (Box 2) at ECU Special Collections. It was one I have never seen either on the Pitt County Register of Deeds site or Full-Text Search at Family Search, and best of all, it was the original of the deed.
It was a 1778 land transaction in which William Averrette (William Averett / William Averitt) is deeding ~150 acres to David Averrette (David Averett / David Averitt) in Pitt County on the W. side of Chicod Creek, part of a larger tract that was granted to Joseph Gadd in a patent 21 Sept 1749. The witnesses on the deed were James Cason and Joseph Boyd. (Original deed image and transcription is at bottom of this post.)
The coolest part was a note handwritten on the back from David to William. It says:
William Averrett sir I was
Dispinted in comin to meat you
sich frish I cundent git a long
the brandy is rady for you
and I Depend upon to havet
David Averrett
David was writing phonetically, as many people did in those days, so if we think about the vocabulary that was in use in those days, here’s what he was saying:
“William Averrett, Sir: I was disappointed in coming to meet you, [due to] such a fresh [“freshet” – aka flood] I couldn’t get along. The brandy is ready for you, and I depend upon [you] to have it. > — David Averrett”
If my calculations are correct, based on ages to appear on deeds as a witness or a grantee, along with military records, petitions, and census records, my guess is David Averitt was born about 1755.
How do you know that it’s your David Averitt?
The most exciting part of this handwritten note on the back of this deed is that the deed is from 1778, so this is the earliest original signature we have as a sample to compare. The deed is between William and David and connects to the Averitts who were in the northern part of Pitt County near Conetoe / Bethel area in the decades earlier.
Most deeds we see are clerk transcriptions in county deed books, so the signatures will tell us if someone signed or just made a mark, but the original deeds have the actual signatures of the people who signed them, and in this case, even though David didn’t sign the deed, the deed was to him and he wrote a note on the back.
My immediate reaction upon seeing the note above is that the signature looked the same. That’s what I wanted to know. Was there a way to definitively link my David to the family in northern Pitt County in the 1760s and 1770s? A signature consistent across decades would be the way to do it.
So take a look at this. This is a collection of signatures spanning from ~1778 (top left), to 1786 (top right) to 1826 (middle left), 1828 (middle right, David’s signature on his will), and 1825 (bottom center). Right away to me the signatures look close enough that I am satisfied.
When I drop the image into AI with no context other than “You are a handwriting expert being asked to give forensic analysis of five signatures given over a period of about 50 years (top left, 1778; top right, 1786; middle left, 1826; middle right, 1828 signing a will; bottom center, 1825) and let me know if these all look like they are from the same man, and why you come to the conclusion you have?” here are the responses I get:
From Google Gemini
Evaluating historical signatures over a 50-year span requires balancing standard physical handwriting variations (due to age, health, and writing materials) against the fundamental muscular habits and letter formations that remain constant throughout a person’s life.
Based on a forensic comparison of these five signatures, there is a very high probability that all five signatures belong to the same man. Here is the breakdown of the key forensic features and structural habits that support this conclusion.
1. The Capital “D” in “David”
The capital “D” is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence across all five samples. It displays a highly consistent execution pattern:
- The Starting Loop & Spine: In every single sample, the writer starts the “D” with an exaggerated, elegant overhead loop that travels downward to form the spine.
- The Bottom Loop & Base: At the baseline, the pen makes a sharp, distinct loop to the left before sweeping back to the right to form the broad bottom belly of the letter.
- The Open Finish: Instead of closing the “D” completely at the top, the writer consistently leaves the main bowl open or pulls the terminal stroke back up and slightly over the top loop (most clearly visible in 1778, 1826, and 1825).
2. Internal Letter Connections (“avid”)
- The “a-v-i-d” Flow: The transition from the “a” into the “v” and “i” is remarkably fluid across the decades. Notice how the “i” is consistently compressed and closely hugged by the preceding “v”.
- The Terminal “d” Loop: In the 1778, 1786, 1826, and 1825 signatures, the lowercase “d” at the end of “David” features an upward, backward-looping ascender. Even as the writer aged into the mid-1820s, that looping impulse remained intact, though it became slightly more exaggerated and shaky.
3. The Surname Formations (“Averitt / Averett”)
Spelling variations (Averitt vs. Averett) were incredibly common in the 18th and 19th centuries, but the strokes tell the real story:
- The Double-Crossed “tt”: Look closely at how the writer finishes the surname. In 1778, 1826, 1828, and 1825, the final “tt” is crossed with a distinct, aggressive sweeping stroke that cuts heavily to the right.
- The “Mark” Exception (Middle Left, 1826): In the 1826 sample, someone has written “his mark” over the surname, and the final “tt” appears slightly altered with a heavier cross. However, the initial capital “D” and the overall slant of “David” perfectly align with the 1825 and 1828 samples.
4. Aging and Health Factors (The 1820s Samples)
When comparing the young man’s signatures (1778, 1786) to the older man’s signatures (1825, 1826, 1828), we see a natural progression of aging:
- Loss of Fine Motor Control: The 1786 signature is smooth, confident, and light. By 1828 (middle right), the line quality is noticeably more shaky, heavy-handed, and angular. This is classic “senile tremor” or general physical decline, entirely consistent with a man signing a will near the end of his life.
- The 1828 Will Signature: Despite being the weakest and most degenerated signature of the group, the 1828 sample still retains the exact same structural blueprint: the specific overhead loop on the “D”, the low connection to the “a”, and the specific way the hand cramped into a tighter, bunched style when attempting the surname.
Conclusion
While a casual glance might see a difference between the smooth cursive of 1786 and the rigid lines of 1828, the underlying skeletal structure, letter-joining habits, and unique flourishes (specifically the overhead loop of the “D” and the terminal “tt” cross) remain unchanged. The variations are entirely consistent with a single individual writing over a 50-year timeline as they aged from youth into advanced years.
From Claude
Forensic Handwriting Analysis: Five David Averitt/Averett Signatures (1778–1828)
Independent assessment of five historical signatures spanning approximately 50 years.
The Specimens
- 1778 — earliest known signature (top left)
- 1786 — eight years later (top right)
- 1825 — approximately 47 years after the first specimen (bottom center)
- 1826 — one year later (middle left)
- 1828 — the latest specimen, signing a will (middle right)
Individual Specimen Notes
1778 — The earliest sample shows a confident, fluid hand. The capital D opens with a large, forward-leaning loop that feeds directly into the “a” without lifting the pen. The surname is executed with notable pen pressure and a connected cursive flow. This is a practiced writer.
1786 — Eight years on, the capital D is structurally consistent with 1778 — same forward lean, similar loop proportion. Pen pressure is slightly lighter overall but letterform construction is comparable. Spelling varies between specimens (“Averitt” vs. “Averett”), but this reflects period clerk convention rather than anything about the signer himself.
1825 — A strong specimen. The capital D again shows the characteristic forward-leaning open loop. The surname carries a distinctive terminal stroke on the double-t that echoes earlier samples. The word “Seal” follows, indicating a formal legal execution. The hand remains confident nearly five decades after the first specimen.
1826 — This specimen shows a full, genuine cursive signature. The capital D maintains the same open, forward-leaning loop seen across all specimens. The cursive flow is connected and confident, and the surname letterforms align closely with the 1825 and 1828 samples, which is expected given the tight date proximity.
1828 (will) — The latest specimen. The capital D construction remains faithful to earlier examples — the same forward-leaning loop, the same direct feed into the “a.” The surname flows with connected strokes, and “Seal” again follows. Some loosening of the letterforms is visible, consistent with an aging hand, but the core structural habits are intact.
Consistent Features Across All Five Specimens
Several handwriting characteristics appear persistently enough across the full 50-year span to be considered personal habits rather than coincidence:
- Capital D construction — An open, forward-leaning loop that does not close tightly, with the downstroke feeding directly into the “a.” This is the single most diagnostically consistent feature across all five specimens.
- The “av” ligature — The connecting stroke between the capital A and the following “v” in the surname is handled similarly throughout, favoring a low, fluid connection.
- Baseline behavior — The signature tends to run slightly uphill, a persistent personal tendency visible across documents.
- Pen pressure patterns — Heavier pressure on downstrokes, lighter on connecting strokes, is consistent throughout.
- Terminal strokes on the surname — The double-t ending is handled with a similar flourish across the later specimens especially.
Accounting for the 50-Year Span
A signature evolving over five decades is expected to show change, and these do. The 1778 and 1786 specimens are crisper, with slightly tighter letterforms. The 1825, 1826, and 1828 specimens show the natural loosening and modest reduction in pressure consistent with an aging hand. Critically, this loosening follows a believable trajectory — it does not represent a sudden or dramatic break in style that would suggest a different writer picking up where another left off.
Conclusion
All five specimens, properly read, show genuine full cursive signatures. Assessed across the 50-year span, the structural habits present — particularly the capital D formation, the av ligature, the uphill baseline drift, and the surname terminal strokes — are consistent enough to support attribution to a single individual writing across a normal aging trajectory.
I find no features in these five specimens that compel a different-writer conclusion. The evidence is consistent with all five signatures belonging to the same man.
Below is an image of the will from William to David, followed by a transcription.
Here is a transcription of the deed:
This Indenture made this forth Day of march in
the year of our Lord God one thousand seven hundred and
Seventy Eight and in the Second year of the State
Between William Averrett of the one part & David
Averrett of the other part Both of the County of Pitt and
Province of North Carolina planter witnesseth that for and
in consideration of the sum of Thirty one pounds 2s/6d
procklamation money to the sd William Averrett in hand
paid by the Sd David Averrett hath barined and sold &
By these presants Set over and Convey unto him ye Sd David
Averrett his heirs and assigns for ever a certan peice of Land
Lying on the W. side of Checod Swamp Beginning at a red
Oak at the Second Bottom Below the pine Long Branch
runing So 4 Et 219 pole to a pine then keeping the Line against Bottom
Above the pine Log Branch then a Contracted line
to the Back line then with the Back line to the corner
thence to the first station Be the same one hundred
fifty acres more or less it being part of a survey
of land granted to Joseph Gadd and by patents bearing
Date September the 21: 1749 to have and to hold the
afore said land & all the primises appertainances profits
and previleges thereunto Belonging unto the Sd David
Averrett his heirs and assigns which Sd land of the Sd
Willliam Averrett Doth hereby agree & oblige myself my
heirs Executors and Administrators to warrant and
forever Defend unto him the Sd David Averrett his
Heirs and assigns in witness
Whereof the Sd William Averrett hath here until set
his hand and Seal the Day and year above written
Signed Sealed & Delivered } Before Assigned Enterind above the fourteenth line
William Averrett { Seal }in the presants of
Joseph Boyd
James Cason
