[r-t] Grandsire/New Grandsire

[edward martin]

On 18 July 2011 13:22, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk> wrote:
> Eddie wrote:
>
>> "Each hunt bell is either a principal hunt or a secondary hunt."
>> As with all comps of New Grandsire of which I am aware, This touch
>> retains the Treble (No. 1) as the primary hunt in both Grandsire & New
>> Grandsire (ignoring that it brings rounds at handstroke,) the above
>> touch has treble as Primary Hunt with no changes lost or gained in any
>> lead block of either method.
>
> I think you have misinterpreted the definition and purpose of principle and secondary hunts, Eddie. They are needed to give unambigous classification of a method when the hunts are different. In Grandsire, the hunts are identical, therefore both are principal hunts.
>
> Graham

This would appear to be so but, since 1950, when Harold Poole & Alf
Ballard, together with Canon Felstead  and C H Kippin pointed out that
"the method called 'Steadfast' was no different from Shipway's
principle of 150 years ago", I have not seen any relevance to
Grandsire/ New Grandsire.
I don't know what 'Steadfast' was but Shipway has no principle hunt!

Anybody who rings Grandsire expects the treble (No. 1) to ring plain
hunt over & over; the bell in the hunt (be it 2,3,4 or5 in Doubles or
2,3,4,5,6 or 7 in Triples etc. may be called  temporarily to hunt
parallel with the treble and I would have thought, compared with 1, in
no way could be considered to be a 'principle hunt'

Given the words 'either or' suggests to me that either 'A' = 'A' or it
doesn't. Thus "Each hunt bell is either a principal hunt or a
secondary hunt." surely should be interpretted as meaning that either
each hunt bell is a principle hunt, or it isn't. Since countless 5040s
of Grandsire on all numbers invariably have No.1 consistantly hunting
up & down, I would have thaought that this bell has every right to be
termed 'principle hunt' whereas in triples, even though the 5040 can
be set out in 72 plain courses with each of 2,3,4,5,6,7 hunting
parallel with the treble and therefore potentially SECONDARY hunts, ,
it is possible to obtain true 5040s without 3, or 5, or 6 ever being
in the hunt, so how the heck can 2,3,4,5,6 & 7 be logically considered
to be principle hunts equal to No. 1?

I've looked at the C.C. Collection of twin hunt methods and nearly all
are akin to Grandsire with plain course having Treble as principle
hunt and 2 as 'the bell in the hunt' or (since each of the other
working bells potentially might be called into the hunt)  is secondary
to the treble. The only exceptions are Little methods, where the
principle & secondary hunt follow identical paths) and methods
classified as 'Slow Course' In these methods only can I see that the
treble & the bell in the hunt do not follow plain hunt paths.
Therefore, since this type of method is already classified as having
principle & secondary hunts following different paths, i.e. are
"needed to give unambigous classification of a method when the hunts
are different" what on earth is the point of queering the pitch by
pretending thatGrandsire type methods have identical principle hunts?

Eddie