BFcaster
Tele-Holic
14 Imperial pounds, although it wasn't standardized until the 19th century.
Interesting that you both referred to Imperial pounds, and not kilos....A stone is 14lbs.
As in 'this Les Paul weighs a stone'.
14 Imperial pounds, although it wasn't standardized until the 19th century.
Interesting that you both referred to Imperial pounds, and not kilos....A stone is 14lbs.
As in 'this Les Paul weighs a stone'.
Interesting that you both referred to Imperial pounds, and not kilos....
Because that's what a stone is.Interesting that you both referred to Imperial pounds, and not kilos....
I never mentioned 'Imperial'.Interesting that you both referred to Imperial pounds, and not kilos....
Weren't old English measures standardized under Henry VIII's rule?Yeah, that whole nautical measurement system is whacky. 'fæthm' was an old English word which meant 'outstretched arms', i.e. the distance between the outstretched fingertips. Whose fingertips though?
I actually prefer metric for small things, like string height/action and even distance in some cases. What confuses me, as a long-time BBC America viewer (Clarkson's Top Gear), and Escape to the Country as well, is that sometimes you Brits use both. Do other common-wealth countries use both? Australia, New Zealand, Canada, territories in the Caribbean??
I actually prefer metric for small things, like string height/action and even distance in some cases. What confuses me, as a long-time BBC America viewer (Clarkson's Top Gear), and Escape to the Country as well, is that sometimes you Brits use both. Do other common-wealth countries use both? Australia, New Zealand, Canada, territories in the Caribbean??
I can’t talk to my parents without a conversion table. It’s pretty cruel that the only thing we ever use imperial distances for ‘officially’ is driving. Imagine those poor teenagers taking their driving test today, having completed education without ever even hearing the word yard.Many of my generation (including Clarkson, and me) are to this day, still thoroughly confused.
This is because we turned up to school one day at some point in the 1960s, and were told to forget all the 'Imperial' stuff we'd been taught previously, and from that day on we were going to use metric system like the Imperial stuff 'never happened'. I guess I'd have been 8 or 9 years old.
My parents generation, and all previous generations, were all Imperial, and my younger siblings were all metric. I was stuck firmly in numerical limbo, where I remain.
I still sometimes use both/either, particularly metric for small measurements and the old stuff for larger measurements, e.g. I can 'visualise' an inch, but not 25 millimetres, or 10 miles, but not 16 kilometres.
I can't speak for the rest of the 'colonies', but the situation is similar in New Zealand, even though (for instance) all the road signs, speedometers etc,. are in kilometres, lots of people still use 'miles' and 'feet' in conversation.
I had a teacher who would assume any number given without a unit meant furlongs/fortnights/firkins.I once calibrated a speedometer in furlongs/fortnight
British WWI tanks were measured in feet & inches, but the armour thickness was in mm's, the machine gun ammo calibre was in inches & the cannon ammo was in pounds. Fuel consumption was in gallons per mile not miles per gallon.As long as we still buy plywood in the UK in sheets of 8 foot by 4 foot by 18mm I'll not participate in any conversations regarding measurements.
![]()
Slightly less than a smither.How small is a smithereen?
Why are the Top Gear team totally obsessed with the notion of 'Horse Power' (and torque to a lesser extent).Many of my generation (including Clarkson, and me) are to this day, still thoroughly confused.
Yes that's roughly what he was saying. Or to paraphrase: wee-er than a baw herr.Wow - meters you can still put coins in - how quaintIn these parts you have to wave your phone/debit card at them while chanting something like "...just ****king work, you poxy bast**d..." The chant is optional, but I hear it used a lot.
I used to work with a gentleman of the Glaswegian persuasion many moons ago...who referred to very small measurements as being 'smaller than a ball hair's width'.
At least I think that's what he was saying![]()