[r-t] Re: Exercise Mathods

[Richard Smith]

Hayden Charles wrote:

> I wondered whether there was significance in the dates of the methods
> listed by Richard.

I think this is explained by the difference between the
definition of Imperial that you quoted from Wilfred Wilson's
book and the definition that Ben quoted from Steve Coleman's
book.  If Imperial is allowed to include any contiguous
places, rather than just pairs of contiguous places that
form Kent or Reverse Canterbury places, then Upton is the
only dubious one.

> (I did not manage to decipher the Llangollen entry - was it in a
> collectin but not yet rung?)

I think this means it was included in either the 1926
collection of Plain Major and Caters methods or the 1952
collection of Plain Major methods, but that it has never
been pealed.

Richard