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

David Bryant davidbryant at 8neIbiL6os99GbTj96rgvc9tIRGVrKDY0E8N-oNf7K1pJkghM6ZmAfMj5G1rmWKZ_NEeX6dDd4q3RRg-YgX0AHXcBi0.yahoo.invalid
Sun May 18 17:12:48 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."


I cannot see that the rules for peals are really relevant - they do not
apply to quarters.


I maintain my original point that counting an augmentation from 3 as a new
ring is wrong - there is no reason to treat them any differently to, say 4
to 5 or 5 to 6 augmentations. Although most ringers and territorial
associations take no interest in lower numbers (except in occasional fits of
control-freakery), they are still rings of bells.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1448 - Release Date: 16/05/2008

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080518/bba2122a/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list