I guess it's become a pet peeve over the years, but I've really come to dislike anecdotal references of C/G measurements from the LE because it can be a little vague.
I mean, sure, we all can find the leading edge, right? But when trying to mimic a known setup on our completed plane, there are a few minor things that could be understood incorrectly, or get in the way of a making a hyper accurate measurement, like: 1) the leading edge sweep continues forward into the fuselage... so are they referencing the C/G with a set of plans in front of them and using the pointy end of the wing hidden inside the fuselage? 2) Or, just outside the fuselage, where large fillets can get in the way, 3) leading edge bluntness depends solely on the builder and his sandpaper, which changes the dimension. And I've never heard it before, but I'll add Bills 4) front or rear of LE spar measurement option.
I much prefer the way Randy Smith states C/G locations when I've asked him in the past, in inches from the trailing edge of the wing. Most all our wings are straight trailing edge, Juno's and the like, and a few other jets etc aside. When Randy tells me 6.5" or 6.75" from the trailing edge, there is very little room for error compared to saying 3.5" or 3.25" from the LE.
I know, I know, the standard reference is to the LE just outside the fuselage, and most of us probably can't measure the C/G very accurately in the first place, but why leave room for the ambiguity?
I'll leave the B/C location discussion for someone else braver than thee who doesn't mind abusing departed equines.
EricV