[r-t] Double Grandsire Doubles

[edward martin]

2009/3/25 Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>

> Don Morrison wrote:
>
>  Depends upon your definition of "Grandsire and Double Grandsire". I
>> believe Eddie Martin would claim it contains neither, since it
>> contains a plain lead of neither method.
>>
>
> It definitely feels like some derivative of Grandsire to me. Whether you
> choose to label it Grandsire, or Double Grandsire, or spliced is somewhat
> arbitrary.
>
> You could call it St Augustine Bob with omits at 10 out of 12 lead ends,
> and a funny half-lead bob in every other lead.  But that description just
> seems wrong to me.
>
> I have an idea I've seen this in some 17th or 18th century text, though I
> have no idea what name was given to it.
>
> Looking through the list archives, it seems that in Aug 2006, Eddie Martin
> thought that this touch was "what I suppose might be called spliced
> Grandsire & Double Grandsire".
>
> RAS


I agree, which is my feeling oft expressed about 'New Grandsire' (don't
let's go over that again please!). However, it is unfortunate that AS
DEFINED by  the CC, the plain lead of neither method is rung, therefore, how
can it be Grandsire as currently defined by plain leads ! ?

As I recall,what prompted me was the then new & revised little pink book on
Doubles methods and its statement that it contained THE definitive
collection of twin hunt methods, yet, unlike previous collections, no longer
included either 'New Grandsire' or 'Double Grandsire'. I asked about this in
a letter to the RW and the reply was that it was now considered that 'New'
was really 'Grandsire' but starting at a different place (which it is if the
method is defined by its plain course) but touches and extents can be had
which affect what (as defined) would be the Primary Hunt...the Secondary
Hunt (= treble in this case) never affected....but we weren't going to go
into that were we?
The reason for their excluding 'Double' was "there is no satisfactory extent
known"
I sent them one by return post.
In the previous Doubles Collection there were numerous extents which
involved making 3rds, or sometimes omitting the 'natural' 3rds, according to
the positional relationship of various pairs of bells.
Again, as far as I recall what I sent in was (with bobs when treble is at
the front and singles when at the back the single is places in 1-2-3)

3 part 120 Double Grandsire Doubles
2345
3425 p b
4325 s b
4253 p p
2453 s b

I got a very friendly letter of congrats from Ken Lewis who said that I had
spotted a way which had been overlooked previously
I assume that he was referring to the single (which off the front would be
places in 3-4-5 instead of 3 at a bob or 5ths at a plain. The 'common
Grandsire single' actually effects a blow too late.to avoid repeats

I haven't bought or seen any ammendments to the little pink book so don't
know whether or not Double Grandsire Doubles is officially restored

Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20090326/e7e3202c/attachment.html>