[r-t] "New Grandsire"
smith_a_p at btinternet.com
Wed Jul 13 10:35:00 UTC 2011
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Philip Saddleton <pabs at cantab.net> wrote:
> there is nothing in the Decisions to say ... that two
> methods cannot have the same Plain Course.
On 5 July 2011 21:36, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:
> Does this loophole mean that Eddie Martin can finally rest a happy
> man, secure in the knowledge that Grandsire and New Grandsire can be
> considered distinct methods?
Decision (E) A.1 (b) says "Starting the plain course from a different change
does not give a different method". Council established this principle at
Eastbourne in 1950 (www.methods.org.uk/archive/ccm1950.htm) when it resolved
"That the method called Steadfast was no different from Shipway's principle
of 150 years ago."
On Tue Jul 5 23:36:08 BST 2011, edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com>
> you mean as in:
> 2345 Grandsire bobbed gives
> 4523 then New Grandsire plain gives
> 3542 and Grandsire plain gives
> (How else would the conductor call the above - obviously two distinct
> methods innit?)
Eddie's touch could be simply described as Original with 3rds place bobs at
handstroke but since the amendment to Decision (E) A.2 at the recent CC
"A call is a means of passing from one course of a method to another. It is
not part of the definition of the method. A call may be effected in one of
the following ways:
(a) by altering the places made between two or more consecutive rows without
altering the length of a lead;
(b) by omitting consecutive changes, altering the length of a lead."
... it could now be alternative described as Grandsire with "New Start"
Best wishes, Tony
email mailto:smithap at acm.org
More information about the ringing-theory