[r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Fri Jul 18 18:10:32 UTC 2008

This thread has moved rapidly into all manner of topics so perhaps I might
attempt to conclude the 'New Grandsire' part of it
(When you originally said that  'things are a bit quiet Philip, you
certainly stirred them up !!!)

I think that Don has put my case more clearly than I had.
It seems to me that IF a method is symmetric about the path of the treble
(or is a symmetric Principle), then merely inverting the Place notation will
surely result in the same thing, BUT, if a method (such as so-called Twin
Hunt methods) whose PN is NOT symmetric about the path of the treble is
inverted then you have a 'legitimate' (horrors) variation of the parent
method. Thus, in my opinion, 'New' or 'Inverse' Grandsire is as legit a
variation of the parent 'Grandsire' as is Reverse Grandsire, or Double
Grandsire. Unfortunately past Methods Committees have defined such methods
has having a Primary & a Secondary hunt which apart from the plain course
from rounds is pure bollox.. You can't set out the 120 of Grandsire Doubles
in Plain Courses where each bell in turn is the secondary hunt (with treble
as the primary hunt) so why adopt a maxim that decrees that you should? Even
in Triples, whilst it is possible to set out the 5040 in so many plain
courses with each bell in turn being the 'Secondary Hunt' the resulting
building material is useless unless you use in-course-singles (such as
Holt's, which do not alter the flow of + & - )
The 5040 of 'New' Grandsire Triples that I posted was an inversion of a
12-part of regular Grandsire Triples of my own. This thing had as many plain
lead q-sets as does JJParker's, but the commom or standard Grandsire single
was useless because as I have said, it can only be used to join 2 otherwise
bobbed leads and NOT 2 plain, nor yet a bobbed to a plain. However, a single
far removed from whatever is happening at the treble's lead, does make the
necessary links

Eddie Martin

2008/7/18 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> > What's this New Grandsire then - is it really just Grandsire rotated? If
> so
> > then it sounds like a load of nonsense; lots of Stedman is rung starting
> at
> > different changes and we still call it Stedman. No-one tries to splice
> > Stedman started at the normal place with Stedman started at, say, the 2nd
> > change of a slow six. Probably we should be able to do that, of course.
> (Yes
> > yes don't tell me it's false across the method change).
> Stedman is a principle, so starting it at a different point doesn't
> make much difference.
> Starting methods with hunt bells in different places generally means
> you have a different hunt bell. To most ringers I think this would
> feel like a more radical change. In the case of Grandsire v. New
> Grandsire this change of hunt bells means the treble becomes the
> "other" hunt bell.
> I'm pretty sure most ringers would find ringing the method that has
> thirds after the lead end (Grandsire) would feel in practice like a
> different method than ringing the one that has thirds before the lead
> end (New Grandsire). And the calls are going to feel different, too.
> If New Grandsire were rung with the usual Grandsire calls, but so
> arranged that the 3 was the permanent hunt bell, with early thirds as
> the 3 comes to lead and thirds always made as the "other" hunt bell
> takes the 3 off lead, then, yes, it would feel like just the same
> method as Grandsire. But in New Grandsire the choice of primary versus
> secondary hunt bell (not in the sense that "secondary hunt" is used in
> the Decisons, just in the sense of the bell that is temporarily "in
> the hunt" in Grandsire) has change significantly.
> --
> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
> "Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling
> angel meets the rising ape."         -- Terry Pratchett, _Hogfather_
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080718/d63331a8/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list