Al,
I believe David is on to something if his assumption is correct. (three tracks original poster) especially given that the original poster never mentioned ASME, only that they'd taken a 6G. The poster may have left out the r but under "4.26 CJP Groove Welds for Tubular Connections" is clearly stated that ASME is not the only code using 6g or 6gr for testing. however the poster did word it in such a manner as to imply it was some other code originally being worked to. Again it would take another assumption to assume that the other code; if in fact it was another code, was ASME and not one of the myriad of other codes from around the world.
Whole and short of it, the original post was poorly worded without sufficient detail to answer it reliably in my opinion.
After the original post, thats another story, I believe it's threatening to take a life of it's own, and i'll not add to it.
Respectfully,
Gerald