Erik as done a good technical analysis for you, and I agree with most everything he said. The only point I might differ on is single SNP testing. Since it doesn't appear that the Rich group has yet discovered their terminal SNP (the most recent historical SNP within a closely related group), I believe there is good value in taking the Geno2 test. They don't test for all of the currently known SNPs, but they do often surprise us with unknown (to us) SNPs. It could take you to your terminal SNP much quicker than single SNP testing, and since it costs around $200 this equates to 5 single SNP tests at $40 each (actually $39). Its possible you could take 5 SNP single tests without discovering your terminal SNP. Since you and your group of Richs seem to have a very unique 'signature' of off-modals that define them, its quite probable that you may not discover your terminal SNP within 5 single tests.
Your haplotype appears to be on the fringe of the Lineage 2 Richs, with at least 3 steps from their 37 marker modal. Your success at finding your closest paternal relatives may ultimately hinge on those 3 markers -- 391=10, 385a=12, and 438=10. Given the fact that there appears to be only one other Rich who has tested to 67 markers, you may need to assume a leadership testing role and then encourage the others to follow.
You may want to re-evaluate your goals before making big commitments of time and money. You stated that you wanted to use Y-DNA to help with your autosomal testing. Remember that 'recent' in the Y-DNA world is probably within the last 1000 years. But, with full genome testing becoming more affordable, genealogical matching and Y-DNA SNP matching will ultimately meet. If everybody took the full genome test we'd all know who our closest living relatives are, but we'd still need genealogical records to determine exactly how we are related. If you're mainly interested in genealogical times, then autosomal testing is your best bet, but it is apparently only useful up to the 5th cousin level.
You said that you are a quick study: this yahoo site may be helpful in reducing your learning curve: There's many helpful people there.
One thing that helped to shorten my learning curve drastically was the discovery of 'triangulation'. Here is the link that was responsible.
Make sure to study the link on that page which discusses the difference between 'ancestral' and 'modal' haplotypes.
Knowing the mutation rates of certain markers is also very helpful when trying to sort haplotypes in chronological order. However, there is no substitution for a large dataset when trying to determine ancestral haplotypes. For example, Lineage 2 in the worldfamilies site seems to suggest that markers 455=10 and 448=20 may have been the first off-modal (from L21 modal) mutations to appear because they all possess those markers. However if we were to assume the following haplotype (Richey) should also be included in Lineage 2 as an ancestral haplotype, this would imply that 448=20, 576=20, and 413a=21 all preceded the appearance of 455=10 (which has the slowest mutation rate of all the off-modal markers in the lineage).
246132 Richey, Samuel Richey http://www.familytreedna.com/public/richey/default.aspx?section=ycolorized
Since so many close matches appear to be from Ancestry.com you may want to check out this conversion page http://dgmweb.net/DNA/General/ADNA_FTDNA.html
It appears that NQYUH didn't do any conversion at all because his 442 marker is 5 above your value (he has 17 there, and yours is 12). 442 is one of the four conversion markers and 5 should be deducted from the Ancestry value. Also, you have the option, without cost, of uploading your STR markers on to Ancestry. I've done this, but didn't find it that useful because none of their 43 markers coincided with my particular haplogroup's off-modals. Your case is quite different in that many of your off-modal STRs are a included in their 43 markers: This is proven by the fact that many of your Ysearch matches are from Ancestry clients. By uploading your results on to Ancestry you eliminate conversion errors (unless you forget to convert). However, it looks like this will be a moot point once you get back your Ancestry results.
Lastly, I would recommend that you upgrade to 111 markers: Perhaps others would follow, and then you'd be better able to determine your closest Y-DNA relations. Even though you had no matches at 67, its possible you could get matches at 111 since the GD limit moves from 7 at 67 to 10 GDs at 111.
To conclude, it seems evident that you have many Rich paternal cousins, as evidenced by the many Ysearch matches. Also, remember that the attraction, and marriage, of cousins in the 19th century was not that abnormal. It seems quite likely that your ancestral grandmother, with the surname Rich, conceived a male child by a distant, or even close, cousin, also by the name of Rich.
R1b-L513 Project Volunteer Co-Administrator
--- In R1b-YDNA@yahoogroups.com, "krich01" <kevin.rich@...> wrote:
> I have looked there and my kit is part of the worldfamilies RICH surname project. I don't know enough (yet) to what markers are unusual so thanks for the comment about 455. I also don't know much about the tools and how to use them properly or interpret the results I see.
> The somewhat interesting thing about any match with the surname "Rich" is that my 2nd great grandmother b. 1837 was a Rich and she never married. The family lore is that while her brothers were off in the Civil War there was an NPE with her and her son Lee B. Rich b. 1862 carried his mother's surname and all of his descendants did. We were always led to believe we were NOT related to the other Rich families in the county and it was only 30 - 40 years ago that we determined we were all of the same descent.
> I mention that because i should NOT match the Rich yDNA and yet I have seen some of my closest matches, although still not a match, to a couple of people with the Rich surname.
> Perplexed. I *really* wish I could get one of the living known "good" Rich living male cousins to test their yDNA.