# [r-t] Stedman Minor and Shipway Minor

Don Morrison dfm at mv.com
Mon Jun 13 14:38:29 UTC 2005

```The CC's Collection of Principles (2000) gives Stedman Minor as Stedman
Doubles with an additional bell making six blows behind throughout a
six, and a cross instead of 5ths joining the sixes. The collection
makes the statement "Stedman at even stages does not conform to the
Central Council requirements for methods", though it doesn't elaborate
on why not. It's really a differential kind of thingie, with two
3-cycles, rather than a principle -- I don't know whether that's a
legal differential method these days or not. If you care about whether
or not what you ring conforms to the CC Decisions, I think it could
almost certainly be force fit into conforming now by thinking of it as
variable cover Stedman Doubles.

The collection gives the following extent by Thomas Thurstans, as rung
in Birmingham in 1819:

231456
______
342615
-  346125
-  413265
-  412635
-  164325
-  163245
-  621435
-  624315
(-) 236145
-  231465
342516
-  345126
______
10 part, omitting (-) from parts 3 and 8.
- = 56

Viewed as Stedman Variable Cover Doubles, you'd simply interchange the
bobs and omits.

I've no idea whether or not this is the same "Stedman Minor" as Sam
recalls seeing in Campanalogia -- it's certainly not the same method as
Sam suggested, though in doing so he did say he didn't remember for
sure what it was, so perhaps this is it? In any case, it would appear
likely to be the method he mentions as having been rung for the St
Martin's Guild in the 19th century.

For Shipway Minor (the method Eddie discussed) the same collection
gives the following 720 by Jonathan Deane as the first rung in the
principle, in Guildford in 1993:

123456  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10
__________________________________
532461     -  -  s  -  -  s     -
163254              s        s  -
134256  s     s           s
__________________________________
3 part
Starts in the middle of a quick eight,
with - = 16 and s = 3456.

--
Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>
"This fish is in CGI because it's very difficult to direct a
real fish, believe me."  -- Jean-Pierre Jeunet, commentary to
_Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain_

```