[r-t] Old short peals [was Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something]

[Mark Davies]

RAS writes,

> I don't think we have enough evidence to say this.  I only have access to
> a list of ASCY peals up to 1873, and there are no further examples there.
> But we've already gone from believing no-one would do such a thing to
> uncovering two examples.

No, and you're right, more research is required.

However it sort of rings true to me that there was a period of debate,
probably taking place over many decades, when Major and higher numbers
started to be rung, and the old extent rules were no longer useful at the
new stages. It wouldn't actually be surprising if that debate led to a
handful of sub-5040 Triples peals being rung.

However, the debate was certainly settled emphatically: 40 thousand odd
peals of the Triples extent versus a couple (or a small handful) of
sub-extent peals. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make: this argument
has been had before, and the sub-extent viewpoint lost out big time.

I am having doubts in my head about this whole Triples thing, though. Ask
the average peal-ringer in the street which is preferrable, a 5026, a 5040
or a 5054 of Triples, and they would probably say:

1. 5026 is a bit short isn't it. Not ringing all the changes guv'nor.

2. 5040 is just the job, I'll happily fill in for that one.

3. 5054 is bloody false! There's a whole lead repeated you great nonce.

Has anyone discussed this down the pub with "ordinary" ringers?

MBD