[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Fri Aug 8 21:58:09 UTC 2008

GACJ writes,

> But this is wrong Mark. A bobs only peal of Grandsire has been rung hasn't
> it. It was 10080 changes.


> I don't understand the logic behind saying that a peal of 10052 Grandsire
> Triples is valid under your rule, because it comprises an extent of 5040
> rows plus a partial extent of 5012 rows, yet the 5012 could not be rung as
> a peal in its own right.

Argh! You are as bad as Don!! Do you people have no soul?! Can you not see
the story being spoiled??

A peal of Triples should at minimum contain an extent. OK, maybe you can 
ring a few more changes, say for a special occasion: but generally a peal of 
Triples is going to be 5040 true and complete changes, isn't it?

Allow less than that and all of a sudden you can ring a true, normal-length,
ordinary-calls bobs-only peal of Grandsire Triples. Which cannot possibly be

All the effort that has gone in over the centuries to these extents of
Triples - to these *peal compositions* of Triples. If peals of Triples had
always been 5000 changes, well of course the composers would have still been
interested in the full extent, from a mathematical point of view, but it 
*wouldn't have been the same* for the ordinary pealringer would it?

"Bobs-only peal of Grandsire sir, why we rang one only the other day! What, 
you say you can't ring an extent of it? Ooh I'm not sure we're bothered sir, 
we've put the peal board up and it looks lovely."

I feel a thousand dusty peal boards in history-steepled ringing chambers
across the land shudder in disgust.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list