[Bell Historians] Re: Alan Buswell's "new survey" (RW, page 541)

Alan Buswell aaj.buswell at QQL7XJFhsu4xfZTZtYr7lmOrm6zngNjirXwqtFSEh80JnP1FJAI-G2TeDs3zzCb78nbJHWnrTmwpv__IKGAPZK2Peivh.yahoo.invalid
Sat May 17 10:36:08 BST 2008

At the far stretch of the imagination there are no 'set rules' for quarter peals. The CC give guidelines for peals and as far as I know these can not be recognised rung on three bells. However they are recorded (but not since 1961) but not counted in my analysis. However repeated quarters on 3 can lead to an augmentation.

Alan B.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Bryant 
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:41 PM
  Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: Alan Buswell's "new survey" (RW, page 541)

  "But these towers are now accountable for quarter peals - my form of jugdement."

  So what's wrong with quarters on 3? I've rung a lot, and as there are no rules for quarters there's nothing to say that they are any less valid than quarters on any other number.


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date: 16/05/2008 07:42

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080517/17ac4623/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list