charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Michael Childs wrote "Hunslet, ... are ...=
not=20
exactly rewarding!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'd just like to enter a mild plea for=20
slightly more sympathetic treatment of the existing eight at Hunslet=20
(Warner 1863 - tenor 18-1-19 - retuned by Taylors in 1939). I have a slight=
=20
fondness for Warner rings of this weight and period which I generally=20
find more rewarding than Taylor or Whitechapel rings of the 1870s and=
=20
1880s. I rather enjoyed Hunslet when I rang in a peal there a few=
=20
years back. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm not under any illusions as to their to=
nal=20
quality by modern standards, but I think they deserve better than being swe=
pt=20
away for a lighter peal. </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Variety is impo=
rtant,=20
and Hunslet are a better-than-average example of a mid-Victorian ring =
of=20
their type</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> - and by no means diffic=
ult to=20
ring. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A mild plea, as I say, for taking stock of=
the=20
merits of the existing bells - and a challenge to the view that newer =
and=20
lighter automatically equals better.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>CP</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>