harestonesdown wrote: bladup wrote: harestonesdown wrote: bladup wrote: No but it's only right because we're talking about it because of your book, i suppose it might be quite interesting for you to see if somebody who knows a bit like Geoff would end up at the same conclusion as you though Roy.
http://i50.tinypic.com/fnfsqd.jpg
:)
Great, that capstone looks a lot more balanced.
I know little about the quoit Paul, though looking at pics on google that front blocking stone looks un-natural there. Has anyone suggested or is it accepted etc that it was placed there later and the capstone raised to accommodate it ?
I really should have kept up with this thread. :)
The place never feels right to me when i'm there and maybe Roys book will give me the answer i've wondered about since first thinking - that isn't right in 2002.
Reply | with quote | Posted by bladup 8th March 2013ce 22:21 |
Trethevy Quoit in danger (Sanctuary, Feb 27, 2013, 18:29)- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (tjj, Feb 27, 2013, 19:01)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Squid Tempest, Feb 27, 2013, 19:16)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (thesweetcheat, Feb 27, 2013, 19:33)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Littlestone, Feb 28, 2013, 10:36)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Nigel (Sanctuary, Mar 05, 2013, 13:58)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Dymond Ground Plan (Sanctuary, Mar 06, 2013, 10:18)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (The Heritage Trust, Mar 08, 2013, 15:57)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (harestonesdown, Mar 08, 2013, 16:12)
- OT (juamei, Mar 08, 2013, 17:51)
- Re: OT (nigelswift, Mar 08, 2013, 17:58)
- Re: OT (juamei, Mar 08, 2013, 18:03)
- Re: OT (harestonesdown, Mar 08, 2013, 17:59)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (bladup, Mar 08, 2013, 16:29)
|
|