roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 20 15:10:13 UTC 2017
RW > Beverley S Minor was extended to eight in 1991. As far as I remember, the band 'ran this past' MethCom and there was no problem with the method *at that time*.
This is not what happened at all.
I submitted 3 possible extensions (IMHO) of Beverley to Tony Smith who wrote to me with a response saying that none of mine were valid but he gave me the place notation of an extension which included 3 blows in thirds. I didn't like this and wrote back saying that I could not see how this was a valid extension as 3 blows in thirds was not in Beverley S Minor.
He responded on 1st April (appropriate?) and I still have his letter and I quote from it
"The Methods Committee considered my extension of Beverley at its meeting on 12 March and agreed that it is in accordance with the Report on Extension adopted by Council on 26 June 1953 and amended by the Report of the Joint Committee for 1971."
He then included examples of the place notation for Minor, Major, Royal and Maximus and went on to say :-
"The Methods Committee is proposing a motion to Council in Birmingham at the end of May which would bring together the 1953 report and later amendments into a new Decision (G). This will not affect the acceptability of the extension of Beverley. Nevertheless I would be grateful if you did not ring the extension before then because some ringers may consider the extension unattractive and I would prefer the debate not to be confused."
We rang the peal on 30th November that year.
The following year a change was adopted saying that no feature should be introduced which is not in the parent.
I rest my case.
More information about the ringing-theory