[Bell Historians] Waresley, Huntingdonshire

[Richard Offen]

> No offense taken, and no apologies needed. I use my full name in 
> several contexts (including all of my standard email signature 
> blocks), and will answer to "Scott" almost as readily as to "Carl".
> 
> Back on topic, on Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:49:46 +0100, Andrew Bull 
wrote:
> >It would be better if the convention was universally adopted where 
a
> >weight given as 11-1-0 meant that the bell in question had actually
> >been weighed and was 11 cwt, 1 quarter, and 0 pounds exactly, and
> >that a weight given as 11' cwt denoted an approximate or reputed
> >weight.
> 
> Unfortunately, fractions don't travel well on the Internet, 
> especially in email. (Web pages aren't quite as bad if they are 
done 
> correctly.) Since the Imperial method of expressing bell weights 
as 
> cwt-qr-lb does travel well, I suggest using a question mark or 
an "x" 
> to indicate an approximation, thus:
> 11-1-? denotes an approximation to the nearest quarter, and thus 
> could be anything from 11-0-15 to 11-1-14 (Do you want to round up 
> or down?)
> 11-x-x denotes an approximation to the nearest hundredweight, 
and 
> thus could be anything from 11-2-0 to 11-1-27 (Same question.)
> 
> What do y'all think of that? (Forget for the moment that it came 
> from a colonial.) (What? Me have an inferiority complex? Never!)
> 
> -- 
> =Carl Scott Zimmerman=

A very good idea.

R