Doubles peals 1992

I have analysed the peals of Doubles rung during 1992 and published in The Ringing World. I found 189 peals; 44 in one method and 97 in 2 or more. The remaining 48 contained variations and, for the first time in nearly three years, one did not conform with Decision (D) C.3. This was a peal in 11m/69v at Heveningham on 26 April (92/505). Extents 23, 26, 31, 35 and 39 each contained three variations with the same plain course, different singles but the same bob. Decision (D) C.3 says that where variations with the same plain course are included in an extent they must not have any calls in common. If Council decides to include this peal in the Analysis we recommend that they follow the precedent established at Wells in 1990 and accept these extents as containing just the methods used and not the variations. The peal would then be recorded as 11m/54v with the particular extents as follows: (23) Eynesbury Bob; (26) St Osmund Bob; (31) St Martin's Bob; (35) St Simon's Bob; (39) Plain Bob.

Moreover, the reports of the 15 peals listed in figure 1 did not conform with Decision (D) C.4 as they did not state the numbers of methods and variations separately; the correction column shows how they should have been reported.

Figure 1
18 JanOld Marston16314m/v5m/7v
1 FebCoseley2373m/1v
29 FebOld Marston30816m/v5m/10v
16 FebSutton Maddock33033m/v12m/21v
21 MarAshill3783m/1v
28 AprEriswell59642m/v11m/31v
13 JunTilston6977m/15v
1 JulWoodditton7477m/1v
1 JulBitteswell7722m/1v
9 JulPevensey79826m/v12m/13v
22 AugBrandeston91812m/25v
27 MayMidhurst9192m/1v
7 NovEast Farndon12045m/1v
19 DecDanehill1299m/1v
26 DecCefn Coed1294m/2v

Five of the peals in figure 1 and the four peals listed in figure 2 claimed from 1 to 5 "variations" which use only standard calls for the parent methods and, in accordance with Decision (E) A.3, are not entitled to different names.

Figure 2
7 JanCanon Pyon1853m/8v3m/6v
4 FebBredwardine3063m/8v3m/6v
20 JunIlmington7255m/8v5m/6v
1 SepHilperton9911m/3v1m/2v

The reports of the peals in 50m at Lacock on 14 March (92/355) and 30m at Tarrant Keyneston on 22 December (93/103) did not conform with Decision (D) C.4 as they did not list the methods rung in each extent separately.

If any band is unsure how the numbers were arrived at for their peal, I will be pleased to provide details on receipt of a stamped addressed envelope.

Lastly, I noticed a minor discrepancy in the report of the peal at York on 8 March (91/356) which claimed 8m but contained 7m.

Chairman, CC Methods Committee

The Ringing World, May 7, 1993, page 458