[r-t] Antelope

[edward martin]

The calling P B P B P B repeated (with 2 singles 60 changes apart) is
true to any of the so-called twin hunt doubles methods (The three part
called S B S P is false to all of them except Grandsire & Reverse
Grandsire). I say 'so-called' because they are defined by the plain
course, yet, as you can see, the bobbed lead is as essential to the
method as is the plain lead. Historically, Grandsire Doubles WAS the
120  and did not have the concept of a plain course with bobbed leads
applied to it.

I can see that this does not fit in with the perhaps reasonable idea
to  pigeon-hole methods, but nevertheless, using the plain course to
define this type of method will exclude New Grandsire simply because
its plain course is identical to Grandsire but starting from rounds
apparently with a different primary hunt bell. However, when the
standard 120 is applied (where the bobbed lead is as essential to the
method as is the plain) then clearly, to my way of thinking, they are
NOT the same method, but I have given up trying to argue the case.

Actually the 1980 Doubles Collection did include both Antelope &
Reverse Antelope. It lists 10 methods where the plain course has a
bell hunting parallel behind the Treble:
Grandsire, Rev. Grandsire, Antelope, Rev. Antelope, Newark Place,  Rev
Newark Place, Wollaton Place,  Rev Wollaton Place, Cranbourne Place
and Bedfont Place.

When the Collection came out I wrote to the RW asking why they had not
included Double Grandsire nor yet New Grandsire, both of which had
been included in the previous Doubles Collection (second ed 1961) As
regards New Grandsire, the reply was as I've stated; but they said
that Double Grandsire had been dropped because a satisfactory 120 was
not known.  The old Collection gave six extents which admittedly were
rather unsatisfactory with instructions like "3rds made when treble
changes with 3,4 behind and with 2, 3, 4, before." I submitted a true
120 in three parts: The bobs are ordinary Grandsire bobs, but the
single is places made in 1-2-3 when treble is in 4-5 up
     2345
-----------
p b  3425
s b  4325
p p  4253
s b  2453
-----------
p b  4523
s b  5423
p p  5234
s b  2534
-----------
p b  5324
s b  3524
p p  3245
s b  2345
-----------
But I've never seen it published anywhere & do not know if Double
Grandsire is included in current Doubles Collections.

mew




On 06/12/2007, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Just as well I read the whole lot of the last digest as I see Ben W has
> answered Basil's question already. What Ben says is of course, quite
> correct, but it is worth pointing out that I seem to recall that SBSP x 3 is
> only true for Grandsire.
>
> b.t.w., on 20th ult., Eddie Martin said "I have been told many times by Tony
> Smith that there is no such thing
> as New Grandsire, though I maintain that there is!"
>
> This is not a new idea. The 1980 Doubles collection omits 'New' Grandsire,
> Antelope, etc so it is safe to say that this concept was around at least
> before 1977 - incubation of printed collections being as they then were. I
> remember when I started ringing, the tower had a copy of the previous
> Doubles collection (c1960?) and I wonder whether the 'New' methods were in
> that.
>
> If not, does anyone know when the concept was first aired. (I'm sure it's
> right.). It's probably quite old
>
> Robin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>