2002-08-25
Pat, I see where you are coming from. Britain, and thus its colonies, have, a longer tradition of having a "standard pound" and thus this 454 g value is more set in stone. In all other countries where the various "pounds" existed and varied from locality to locality right up to the time of metrication, there was never an attachment to a "standard pound" and thus it was easier to just set the value at 500 g without any worry about what it would affect. And I'm sure there were few recipes written down or that were that critical that the incorporation of the old measures into the new metric ones didn't make much of a difference if they varied somewhat. I'm believe that even before metrication, any recipe, either oral or written, would have produced varying results based on where it was used, as the FFU varied so much across Europe. In this regard metrication made recipes more standardised. I just wonder how many Australian recipes would be off balance if the chef used a 500 g amount when a pound is called for. And since your response indicates that my comments are not strictly so, can I infer that there are significant cases where 500 g is used as a valid interpretation of a pound? I feel that despite Australia's history with the imperial measures, it too will succumb to the same "shortcuts" others have adopted. Albeit the time will be longer before all requests for pounds end up with becoming 500 g. But, it will still happen. It is just a matter of time. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2002-08-25 16:25 Subject: [USMA:21923] Re: question Dear John, on 2002-08-26 02.16, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <snip> > For example, if an Australian asks for a pound of ham at the > deli counter, the attendant will weigh out 500 g on a pure metric scale, > price it at 500 g and as far as the store is concerned only a metric amount > was vended. The customer who has no clue as to what a pound is, just the > use of the name, does not feel cheated if he/she did not get exactly what he > asked for based on the American concept of a pound, that is 454 g. <snip> What you say here is not strictly so. I will use your example to explain. if an Australian asks for a pound of ham at the deli counter, the attendant will weigh out 450 g on a pure metric scale, price it at the 'per kilogram' or at the 'per 100 gram rate', and as far as the store is concerned only a metric amount was vended. The customer wants a pound. She is probably old and she knows that for her particular recipe (which her grandmother inherited from her grandmother) a pound is required. [It may also be true that she is young and that she has no clue as to what a pound is � but this is a digression]. Australian butchers have no tradition that a pound is 500 grams, so they serve about 450 grams to those who ask for a pound. They know that they are serving to a recipe size and not to an ignorant person. No doubt, in nations (say France and Germany) where 500 grams to a pound has been common argot for a century or two, the recipes passed from generation to generation have been quietly adjusted to suit the fatter pound. This transition has yet to take place in Australia, but I suppose it could. Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia
