[r-t] Caversham

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Aug 11 06:26:00 UTC 2013

Hi All,

I suspect the 'problem' with Caversham (whatever) was the asymmetry.

It was believed at the time that no asymmetric method could give an 
extent - in a straight forward manner. This would be 'fatal' to naming a 
method on five, six or seven  by the ideas of the time and so, by 
extension, methods on 8 or more would be classed similarly.

We know now, however, that many asymmetric methods will give an extent - 
most recently, 'Prince George Alexander Louis Slow Course Doubles' 
( which can be called PPBBx3 or PPSSx3 - with 
common bobs and singles. Any method not able to produce an extent can 
now be rung to a double extent for naming purposes. 'Laurance Bob Minor' 
(x16x16x56x36x14x le 12  given in Annable's notebook as 'Laurance 
Double') is a recent example.

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list