[Bell Historians] Mini rings
c.j.pickford.t21 at qofVj2Tp-3ypwZ1xIXJjeDfCkxNPV1w4xz_e_kNmwvPk62D_G1VTT20MzUXDjS1hLsP7s0EEw_Zk3OWj_GhYMUbtROsGMjjA.yahoo.invalid
Fri Jan 29 11:10:01 GMT 2010
The whole problem of categorisation - as already implied by several contributors - is that hard and fast rules based on weight, location, bell type etc just won't work. I do agree with John Harrison that weight is the logical criterion to apply - but it doesn't work here. It's the search for an alternative that has led to the discussion
If there is to be a divide between mini-rings and others - given that we're in "personal space" here and in a zone where imposition of rules from outside won't be acceptable - one option might be for owners to indicate in which category they feel their ring belongs. This could be on the basis that once an option had been selected it can't be changed for convenience (e.g. switching from mini- to other in order to claim record lengths in both categories) - and there might have to be some scope for "peer review" to ensure that rings end up in the categories in which "most people" agree they belong.
At the end of the day this is about changeringing performances on these bells - and how to classify them - rather than about the bells themselves. I do rather think that this leads us away from thinking about physical properties and recognisable criteria into something rather more complex - and yet, as DRL suggested earlier, there probably is a fairly general consensus about what is a mini-ring and what isn't even if it can't be readily defined in words or rules,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bell-historians