Jump to content

Ready Reckoner


vox
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have in my possession a book entitled "Crichton's Metric System With English Equivalents" which I guess must be a reprint because it's in as-new condition although it makes no mention of this inside the covers. It contains tables of every measurement thought up by man.

One of my favourites is the table of Russian Poods, Funts and Zolots into hundredweights, quarters and pounds. The old Russian tables of lengths are quite interesting, 17.5 Liniias = 1 Verchok, 16 Vechoks = 1Archinne, 3 Archinnes = 1 Sagene, 500 Sagenes = 1 Versta. I kid you not, and I thought inches, feet and yards were complicated.

So if you can't tell your Pood from your Archinne I'm the man to put you right !

HD

Further to the above I've been thinking about the book which appears to be brand-new but which contains no modern referance to a re-printing at all. It is printed on high quality cream coloured paper with a dark blue binding. The frontispiece states "Sole Agents Gall & Inglis, 12 Newington Road Edingburgh 9 and 13 Henrietta Street, Strand, WC2. It also says "Entered at Stationers Hall" & Neill & Co 212 Causewayside, Edingburgh.

In a list of publications by F. A. Crichton it mentions that the book is the 15th edition and also states Roy. 8vo. 89pp.whatever that means.

I should like to post some scans from it but I'm wondering what the copyright position might be. If it is a modern reproduction surely the publisher would make some mention somwhere and there are certainly no referances to copyright or modern library numbers. The Russian measurements were not used after 1924 when they went metric so the original must date from before then.

What do we all think ?

HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to the above I've been thinking about the book which appears to be brand-new but which contains no modern referance to a re-printing at all. It is printed on high quality cream coloured paper with a dark blue binding. The frontispiece states "Sole Agents Gall & Inglis, 12 Newington Road Edingburgh 9 and 13 Henrietta Street, Strand, WC2. It also says "Entered at Stationers Hall" & Neill & Co 212 Causewayside, Edingburgh.

In a list of publications by F. A. Crichton it mentions that the book is the 15th edition and also states Roy. 8vo. 89pp.whatever that means.

I should like to post some scans from it but I'm wondering what the copyright position might be. If it is a modern reproduction surely the publisher would make some mention somwhere and there are certainly no referances to copyright or modern library numbers. The Russian measurements were not used after 1924 when they went metric so the original must date from before then.

What do we all think ?

HD

HD

See my comments and links in this post

http://www.sheffieldhistory.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=8790&view=findpost&p=65366

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a list of publications by F. A. Crichton it mentions that the book is the 15th edition and also states Roy. 8vo. 89pp.whatever that means.

It means it's the 15th edition, the size is Royal octavo, and it contains 89 pages. ( Royal Octavo = 10 in. x 6.25 in.)

(Do I get my Blue Peter badge now please? :mellow: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've a couple of books I picked up somewhere which I find fascinating.

One is "A measure of all things, the story of measurement through the ages" by Ian Whitelaw, the other, which I findreally fascinating, is "How heavy, how much, and how long, weights, money and other measures used by our ancestors" by Colin R> Chapman.

There are words in it I've never heard of, for example;

Dry measures:

1 pint = 4 gills

1 quart = 2 pints

1 pottle (In Scotland called a forpit or a lippie) = 2 quarts

1 gallon = 2 pottles

1 peck = 2 gallons (or 4 beatments)

1 tovet (or Tuffet) = 2 pecks

1 bushel = 4 pecks

1 bucket ( of chalk) = 1.5 bushels

1 strike or raser = 2 bushels

1 bag = 3 bushels

1 coombe ( of grain) = 4 bushels

1 seam = 2 coombes

1 sack ( of coal) = 4 bushels

1 sack ( of flour) = 5 bushels (= 1 porter's load)

1 quarter = 8 bushels

1 chaldron = 12 bags

1 wey (also called a load or a horse-load) = 5 quarters

1 Last = 2 weys

And that's just 1 table!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read all the links through from end to end and have come to the conclusion that I haven't a clue. I think perhaps I won't bother, with my luck the copyright will still be owned by some huge American publishiing company and the UK government will have me extradited to serve 10 life sentences in Sing-Sing !

HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've a couple of books I picked up somewhere which I find fascinating.

One is "A measure of all things, the story of measurement through the ages" by Ian Whitelaw, the other, which I findreally fascinating, is "How heavy, how much, and how long, weights, money and other measures used by our ancestors" by Colin R> Chapman.

There are words in it I've never heard of, for example;

Dry measures:

1 pint = 4 gills

1 quart = 2 pints

1 pottle (In Scotland called a forpit or a lippie) = 2 quarts

1 gallon = 2 pottles

1 peck = 2 gallons (or 4 beatments)

1 tovet (or Tuffet) = 2 pecks

1 bushel = 4 pecks

1 bucket ( of chalk) = 1.5 bushels

1 strike or raser = 2 bushels

1 bag = 3 bushels

1 coombe ( of grain) = 4 bushels

1 seam = 2 coombes

1 sack ( of coal) = 4 bushels

1 sack ( of flour) = 5 bushels (= 1 porter's load)

1 quarter = 8 bushels

1 chaldron = 12 bags

1 wey (also called a load or a horse-load) = 5 quarters

1 Last = 2 weys

And that's just 1 table!

I've not heard of all of them either.

More interestingly, having never heard of a pottle (forpit or lippie) it seems to be a unit used to "fill in a gap" making everything go up nicely by just doubling.

So instead of, as we were taught,

2 pints = 1 quart

4 quarts (quarters?) = 1 gallon

It now becomes more neatly, all in two's

2 pints = 1 quart

2 quarts = 1 pottle

2 pottles = 1 gallon

Interesting, <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read all the links through from end to end and have come to the conclusion that I haven't a clue. I think perhaps I won't bother, with my luck the copyright will still be owned by some huge American publishiing company and the UK government will have me extradited to serve 10 life sentences in Sing-Sing !

HD

This is a problem, we need clarification from some knowledgeable source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've a couple of books I picked up somewhere which I find fascinating.

1 peck = 2 gallons (or 4 beatments)

1 tovet (or Tuffet) = 2 pecks

1 bushel = 4 pecks

1 bucket ( of chalk) = 1.5 bushels

1 strike or raser = 2 bushels

1 bag = 3 bushels

1 coombe ( of grain) = 4 bushels

1 seam = 2 coombes

1 sack ( of coal) = 4 bushels

1 sack ( of flour) = 5 bushels (= 1 porter's load)

1 quarter = 8 bushels

I remember hearing about bushels and pecks when I was little.

I really don't want to sound old but surely someone out there

must remember that song " I love you a bushel and a peck. "

I think it was an American female singer. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got it lol

I love you a bushel and a peck

A bushel and a peck and a hug around the neck.

Doris Day he he

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to the above I've been thinking about the book which appears to be brand-new but which contains no modern referance to a re-printing at all. It is printed on high quality cream coloured paper with a dark blue binding. The frontispiece states "Sole Agents Gall & Inglis, 12 Newington Road Edingburgh 9 and 13 Henrietta Street, Strand, WC2. It also says "Entered at Stationers Hall" & Neill & Co 212 Causewayside, Edingburgh.

In a list of publications by F. A. Crichton it mentions that the book is the 15th edition and also states Roy. 8vo. 89pp.whatever that means.

I should like to post some scans from it but I'm wondering what the copyright position might be. If it is a modern reproduction surely the publisher would make some mention somwhere and there are certainly no referances to copyright or modern library numbers. The Russian measurements were not used after 1924 when they went metric so the original must date from before then.

What do we all think ?

HD

Someone questioned my "Rocks Architectural Views of Sheffield" saying it was republished in 1968, I pointed out mine was the original 1903 copy; we decided the 1968 re-issue was under copyright since they (the publishers had some input to its production) but they had no claim over an original copy over 100 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone questioned my "Rocks Architectural Views of Sheffield" saying it was republished in 1968, I pointed out mine was the original 1903 copy; we decided the 1968 re-issue was under copyright since they (the publishers had some input to its production) but they had no claim over an original copy over 100 years old.

This is similar to the answer I got about postcards. I have a collection of postcards of the Porter valley, all published around 190*. I asked the person in charge of Picture Sheffield about copyright, and his reply was that if I owned an original copy then I could reproduce it, but if I owned a modern copy then it would be subject to copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember hearing about bushels and pecks when I was little.

I really don't want to sound old but surely someone out there

must remember that song " I love you a bushel and a peck. "

I think it was an American female singer. :rolleyes:

Fear not dear lady, you are among contemporaries (some of us anyway! :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone questioned my "Rocks Architectural Views of Sheffield" saying it was republished in 1968, I pointed out mine was the original 1903 copy; we decided the 1968 re-issue was under copyright since they (the publishers had some input to its production) but they had no claim over an original copy over 100 years old.

It was me Richard, and I said it was republished in 1974 as i own the 1974 edition.

In any case it makes little difference to your argument here as it would still be ruled out by that 25 year rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was me Richard, and I said it was republished in 1974 as i own the 1974 edition.

In any case it makes little difference to your argument here as it would still be ruled out by that 25 year rule.

This is where guidance is required, is it 25 years from publication or 70 years from the death of the author

see earlier post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was me Richard, and I said it was republished in 1974 as i own the 1974 edition.

In any case it makes little difference to your argument here as it would still be ruled out by that 25 year rule.

i also possess the 1974 edition, but it makes it clear on the frontispiece that it is a re-print and is copyright and it carries modern library codings. The Metric book I have has no indication at all that it is a reprint. I've emailed a book dealer to try to find something about it, I'll post if i get a reply. I can't remember where I obtained it, only that it was wrapped in brown paper and hairy string.

HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i also possess the 1974 edition, but it makes it clear on the frontispiece that it is a re-print and is copyright and it carries modern library codings. The Metric book I have has no indication at all that it is a reprint. I've emailed a book dealer to try to find something about it, I'll post if i get a reply. I can't remember where I obtained it, only that it was wrapped in brown paper and hairy string.

HD

Hmm...

Books of dubious origin sold wrapped up in brown paper <_<

Wonder what they could be! lol

My 1974 is actually my wifes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i also possess the 1974 edition, but it makes it clear on the frontispiece that it is a re-print and is copyright and it carries modern library codings. The Metric book I have has no indication at all that it is a reprint. I've emailed a book dealer to try to find something about it, I'll post if i get a reply. I can't remember where I obtained it, only that it was wrapped in brown paper and hairy string.

HD

It's the hairy string bit that bothers me . :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the hairy string bit that bothers me . :blink:

Only gardeners seem to use hairy string these days, - to fasten plants up to supports and trellis and the like.

For all other uses where string is called for, like tieing up parcels, it has, not suprisingly, gone out of fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the hairy string bit that bothers me . :blink:

I borrowed that description from Arkwright,,,, GGGGGrranville fetch your cloth !

It was almost certainly purchased for about threepence halfpenny from a car boot or table-top sale, it certainly didn't arrive in a plain wrapper from Holland or Sweden.

HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only gardeners seem to use hairy string these days, - to fasten plants up to supports and trellis and the like.

For all other uses where string is called for, like tieing up parcels, it has, not suprisingly, gone out of fashion.

I've been wearing black socks with white hairs recently - not a fashion statement, the cat (who is moulting, not repeat not melting) has been sleeping on them in the drawer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wearing black socks with white hairs recently - not a fashion statement, the cat (who is moulting, not repeat not melting) has been sleeping on them in the drawer.

As long as the cat has ONLY been sleeping on them Richard lol

Back to vox's original ready reckoner which was basically just a quick way of converting Imperial money (£/s/d) into the same unit as the system relied on multiples of 2, 4, 12 and 20.

For example if you had 30 (old) pence (30d) the book would tell you that this was in fact the same as 2 shillings and sixpence (2/6).

When we were in the third year of Junior school our teacher "Granny" Smith made us learn most of the book by heart, and to "encourage" us she gave us a test on it every afternoon registration and got one of us out of the front to reel off a hugh section of it as though we were reciting our "times tables" whivh we had done a few years earlier. She even caned / slippered / rulered a few who didn't take this seriously or bother to try and learn it.

This was in the mid 1960's. We learn't it OK but surely people knew by then that decimalisation was on its way in and that within 5 years or so all of what we had learnt would be obsolete and completely useless.

It would have been more practical for us to learn things like, -

£1 = 100 new pence

10 shillings = 50 new pence

half a crown = 12 and a half new pence

2 shillings = 10 new pence

1 shilling = 5 new pence

sixpence = 2 and a half new pence

one penny = about half a new pence

Ready for the impending decimalisation.

Interestingly, to avoid confusion the pence coin was officially called the "new pence" when it was first introduced and both sets of currency were in circulation together and it had this marked on it.

Being an old 'un I still call it a "new penny" to this day, much to the bemusement of younger people if the date on the penny happens to be nearer 1971 than 2010 lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...