The amount of turn isn't the point, but in case the previous response (from anymouse) causes confusion I'm not sure what is meant by "the most characteristic version" but the amount of turn achieved in the chart forms of the natural and reverse turn is one whole turn for each figure. This is good technique and is the amount of turn expected in examination. Of course the natural turn is underturned at the corner but not "around the short side" or any other side. One could achieve a sort of arc by dancing three naturals in succession, the first and last each cutting a corner. Cutting corners as a matter of course is frowned upon by examiners, however.

http://www.goballroom.co.uk

"Although the amount of turn is the same of course, the reverse turn feels "tighter" than the natural turn therefore and this is reflected in the different foot positions."

While the difference in turning in the two directions in the hold should not be discounted, the amount of turn in the most characteristic version is not the same either.

If you are dancing reverse turns down the long side they will have to complete a full 1/2 turn, but if you dance natural turns around the short side each one can be under-turned to add up into a nice graceful arc the width of the room.

Of course some like to curve their reverse turns around the short side, but that's a different story.

The reason why both gentleman and lady close in the natural turn but cross in front in the reverse turn is that in the case of the natural turn we are turning towards the open side of the hold but in the case of the reverse turn we are turning towards the closed side*. Although the amount of turn is the same of course, the reverse turn feels "tighter" than the natural turn therefore and this is reflected in the different foot positions.

*In the normal hold, from the gentleman's point of view the left hand side of the hold is described as open even though the body position is closed.

http://www.goballroom.co.uk

"A more sedate form of the V. Waltz was danced at 90 beats per minute, evolved in America about 1834 and was originaly known as the Boston."

Some would argue that the Boston is the origin of the modern ballroom slow waltz.

From the Histoty of Ballroom Dancing.
A more sedate form of the V. Waltz was danced at 90 beats per minute, evolved in America about 1834 and was originaly known as the Boston. The Boston has the distinction of being the first Ballroom Dance to be done with the feet parallel rather than turned out in Ballet. The present form of the dance was derived around 1910 in England. Strausse wrote the song The Blue Danube in 1867.
Just for the record the demonstration of the Viennese Waltz I saw in Vienna was a distant cousin to the one I know.

I'm curious as to why a 'lock' is danced in the reverse sequence whereas, in the natural sequence of the dance, no lock is performed.

My teacher says "...because that's the way it is". NOT SATISFACTORY!!!

Because we dance around the floor in a counter clockwise direction

"Where to start or finish a Reverse Turn is facing the LOD."

No. The correct answer is facing DW, but moving LOD.

The 1/8 turn from DW to LOD is accomplished only during step 1, not before it.

Note that this is a turn of alignment only. The direction of travel is consistently down the LOD while only the alignment really changes.

This kind of changing alignment during step one is rare in the other swing dances (though it does occur), but what must be remembered is that it's only the alignment changing during step one, the travel itself is not curved during step one.

In case the previous response (from Anonymous) causes confusion the alignment of step 1 of the reverse turn is as I wrote two postings ago.

There are some aspects of technique which are unwritten, however these are few in number and general in kind. These aside, technique is by definition prescribed. There is little room for debate over what is prescribed in ballroom dancing about alignment and amount of turn. One simply has to locate the figure in the technique books, then locate the correct intersection of row and column, and finally read correctly what is written. One may have a subjective opinion as to whether the technique should be rewritten, but not as to what it actually says.

The alignments and amounts of turn are basic and crucial aspects of the Viennese waltz. I encourage readers not to rely on information without authority but to seek qualified tuition.

http://www.goballroom.co.uk

"One may have a subjective opinion as to whether the technique should be rewritten, but not as to what it actually says."

You must be new here.

We regularly get into arguments here about what the actual text in the reference books says.

Further, we even more frequently get into arguments about what the literally quoted passages mean.

For example, there's are those here who who still do not understand that the stated amounts of turn are measured between alignments, and that those alignments are of the feet. Neither the body alignment nor the direction of travel will necessarily match the stated foot alignment, or necessarily change when an amount of turn indicates a change of foot alignment.