[Bell Historians] Re: Olympic Bell

[Richard Smith]

Chris Pickford wrote:

> I don't see why we're still arguing about this. The basis on which the 
> calculator converts is correct, and taking Dickon's base figure of 22.91 tons 
> produces the following equivalents - confirming the conversion In long tone / 
> cwts) of 22-10-3-24 DRL originally supplied.

Given the weight is only quoted to the nearest 10 kg (as we 
only have two figures after the decimal place), it seems 
wrong to present the weight in cwt-qtr-lbs when, in fact, 
it's only known to the nearest quarter hundredweight. 
Should we not just call it 451 cwt and be content that we 
don't and won't know its weight down to the last pound?

RAS