roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk
Sat Apr 8 16:09:51 UTC 2017
My original point is that Place Notation is a method of description and should not be used as the (only) rule for extension.
The proper answer about Beverley should have been that it does not extend beyond Minor. However, using the silly rules of place notation allowed an extension which would now not be allowed now because it introduces a features (3 blows in 3rds) which are not found in the parent.
Robin said in his earlier post " In this area, you cannot get away with saying 'I think..' - it needs to be proved - chapter & verse if you like. 'Watertight' is the current phrase." What I am saying is that the methods committee showed in 1989 that place notation is not watertight. My conclusion from that is that it is not a reliable method of extension on its own. I accept that it works in a lot of cases but 'a lot' is not watertight. QED.
More information about the ringing-theory