[r-t] Bastow / Cloister

Hayden Charles hcharles at grandsire.co.uk
Fri Feb 3 15:20:23 UTC 2006

This takes us to one of the byways of the method extension rules.

As we know, by the 'rules' the extension of even-bell Plain Bob to odd 
numbers should be Grandsire, because single-hunt even-bell methods are 
given a second hunt bell. History and tradition prevented re-naming.

 From a practical ringing viewpoint, Plain Bob Doubles/Triples feel more 
like 'Plain Bob' than Grandsire does.

In a similar vein, people ring 'Bastow' doubles by adding 4 blows in 
5ths to Bastow minimus. Again, from a practical viewpoint the feel is 
much more like 'Bastow' and a good basis for progressing to the minor 
and treble-bob.

I can see that from the viewpoint of classifying and naming things, the 
Decisions will prevent a proliferation of names. It seems odd that in 
two commonly-rung examples the effect is so different.

So does the addition of a second hunt bell preserve anything essential 
about the 'base' method, or is it just an an administrative convenience 
to keep the same name?

I did learn to ring in a tower where 'spliced' meant spliced triples 
(Grandsire, Single/Double Oxford etc). Not much of that about these days.

Hayden Charles

Ben Willetts wrote on 03/02/2006 13:50:
> Percy:
>>I believe [Cloister] is a logical extention of Bastow little bob
> Depends what you call 'logical'!  :-)  Bastow is an even-bell method where
> there is one hunt bell, hunting to 2nds and back.  Cloister is an odd-bell
> method where there are two hunt bells, hunting to 3rds and back.  So yes, it
> does seem logical, although it doesn't fit the CC definition of an
> extension.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/249 - Release Date: 02/02/2006

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list