[r-t] Bobs only peal of Plain Bob Triples

[Simon Humphrey]

Didn't Annable produce a bobs-only composition in the 18th century?
In fact, wasn't bobs-only PB7 the first peal ever rung?
SH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [mailto:ringing-theory-
> bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Philip Earis
> Sent: 13 June 2012 21:23
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: [r-t] Bobs only peal of Plain Bob Triples
> 
> A frequent misconception in ringing theory is that you need singles to
> ring a peal of plain bob triples.
> 
> Clearly this is not the case - see eg this 9 part by Prof Holroyd:
> 
> ===
> 5040 Plain Bob Triples
> Alexander E. Holroyd
> 
> W B I M  23456
> --------------
> - - -    63254
>   - -    45362
>   - - -  56342
>   - -    24653
> - -(-)   34256
> --------------
> 9 part.  Omit (-) in parts 3,6 and 9 (3rd part end 234756) ===
> 
> My question though is: has a bobs-only extent of PB7 ever been rung?  I'm
> probably unaware of multiple peals of something obvious, but even after a
> quick search I'm not aware of any examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net