Talk:Peck

Kenning

The link 'kenning' needs to go to a disambiguation page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.91.28 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2004

Not rare

TRUE

This statement is true: Apples are often sold in peck or Ahalf-peck bags or baskets in the United States, but otherwise the peck is rarely used.

Anyone who lives in an agricultural area or who has ever been to a farmer's market can tell you the peck is still widely used. Most commonly it is used for fruits (peaches, apples, pears, etc) but is also common for vegetables too. Just because you don't see pecks in your supermarket doesn't mean it's not a common measurement. I strongly suggest this be reworded.

~~a wiki reader from Raleigh, NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.161.28.25 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2007

Scotland before 1824

If peck was used prior to the Weights and Measures Act of 1824 --an act which introduced the Imperial measurement system-- then the primary equivalent should be in Imperial measures (as it is in the table). A peck is 2 gallons, not "about 9 litres". It just sounds absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.241.10 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks and minerals

"A peck is also the standard measurement used when weighing rocks or minerals." - So not true, at least not in the UK. We use kilos for weighing rocks and cubic metres for specifying volume. I'll remove in a couple of days unless someone can prove it. 131.111.195.11 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is almost certainly nonsense -- I'm removing it, and please don't revert without providing a relevant citation.24.72.118.223 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The liquid peck?

A peck is only used for dry measure according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_measure page. I think the liquid peck conversions should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.151.108 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to comment on this too. JIMp_talk·cont 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the references to the US liquid measures didn't belong. I have removed them all. JIMp_talk·cont 06:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous; just because the units originally came from Queen Anne wine gallons in the UK doesn't mean they can't be used in measuring dry quantities in US kitchen measure. Move to restore volumetric equivalencies as this is of aid in cooking, between Queen Anne-derived and Winchester-derived measures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surveyor792 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the conversion to litres on the first line of the article seems to be from US liquid gallons to litres. If the conversion from US dry gallons is used then a volume of around 9 litres results which is a lot closer to the UK/Scots volume. I have changed the conversion based on values in "Conversions" section which are consistent with the Wikipedia Gallon page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodgesoc (talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1/2 Peck Bag Has Improper Dimensions

If the side and base measurements are accepted, then the top measurement would be an additional ~1.625cm. Not only are the units wrong, they aren't even in the proper inches, from which the Peck is defined in the US Customary system. Move that it be fixed, or removed with hopefully a title-card free version substituted Surveyor792 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some natural traditional LxWxH volume definition (or approximation) of peck in inches?-71.174.175.150 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the cm measuremnts, I make that half-peck bag 3.8335 litres, or just under 234 cubic inches. Given that the article makes a peck 7.6 litres (~463.8 cubic inches), if anything, the half-peck bag is too big to be a true half-peck. But do note, however, that there are four different pecks mentioned in the article (imperial, Scottish, US dry, and US liquid). Your peck may vary. Rhialto (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A US liquid pint is exactly 28.875 cu. in.; a US dry pint is exactly 33.6003125 cu. in. This makes the corresponding pecks 462 cu. in. and 537.5 cu. in, respectively. That paper bag is just over half (actually 0.506352) of a US liquid peck. Quite why they made a paper bag in half a liquid peck size is beyond me. But it is without doubt half a peck (it says so right on the label). Just not the half anyone would reasonably expect. Rhialto (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

otoh, that paper bag does seem to serve as evidence that the US liquid peck is a real thing, as well as, I assume, the US dry peck and imperial peck. I suspect the table of equivalancies in the next section needs to be updated, and where US measures are indicated, it needs to be made clear whether liquid or dry measures are being referenced. Rhialto (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original natural dimensions - 18.5 inch in diameter

If 1 imperial peck = 2 imperial gallons, originally based on the volume of 10 pounds of water, there would be no original natural volume dimensions for the peck.

But if one US peck = 1⁄4 of a US bushel: The US bushel is based on Winchester measure in which a bushel was originally defined as the volume of a cylinder 18.5 in in diameter and 8 in high, then the original natural volume dimensions of a peck would be: 18.5 inch in diameter and 2 inch high:

It is first defined in law by a statute of 1696-7 (8 & 9 William III c 22. s 9 & s 45) And to the End all His Majesties Subjects may know the Content of the Winchester Bushell whereunto this Act referrs, and that all Disputes and Differences about Measure may be prevented for the future, it is hereby declared that every round Bushel with a plain and even Bottom, being Eighteen Inches and a Halfe wide throughout, & Eight Inches deep, shall be esteemed a legal Winchester Bushel according to the Standard in His Majesty's Exchequer.(british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46870&strquery=winchester%20bushel#s45 Statutes of the Realm: volume 7: 1695-1701 (1820), pp. 247-257)

In 1824 a new Act was passed in which the gallon was defined as the volume of ten pounds of pure water at 62 °F with the other units of volume changing accordingly. The "Winchester bushel", which was some 3% smaller than the new bushel (eight new gallons), was retained in the English grain trade until formally abolished in 1835. In 1836, the United States Department of the Treasury formally adopted the Winchester bushel as the standard for dealing in grain and, defined as 2,150.42 cubic inches, it remains so today.

-71.174.175.150 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Piper

Not only is pickled pepper rarely if ever measured in peck quantities; you can't pick pickled pepper, because no method has been developed of pickling capsicums 'on the hoof'.

I think the Peter Piper reference should be deleted (it is uncited). MrDemeanour (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "to pick" has other meanings than "to pluck from the bush on which it was grown." The quote is, in any case, not about making any kind of sense: it's a "tongue-twister", hard to say out loud. I have no opinion on its worthiness to be kept or deleted.

One other usage I am familiar with, at least, is the proverb: "you'll eat a peck of dirt before you die." I can't offer a citation, though. – Eddy 84.212.132.95 (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The peppers were one peck after being picked and pickled. Don't be so picky about what you consider to be the most obvious sense using today's English to interpret archaic texts.

Concerning the peck of dirt, it comes from Jonathan Swift's 1738 work Polite Conversation in Three Dialogues according to https://fandom-grammar.livejournal.com/102650.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.44.214 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peck

Peck is a common reference among Caucasians who use pecker wood as in racial identifying white men, hence oeck for short, this is not a feminine inclusive term as feather wood to the feminine identity of the Caucasian there is gender confusion among the Caucasian persons referenced here in. 2600:1010:B18D:9B2F:0:E:A2B6:2F01 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slang

Slang on the California department of corrections 2600:1010:B18D:9B2F:0:E:A2B6:2F01 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]