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>Thanks for the full update on this, Michae=
l. I=20
appreciate all the issues - though I had forgotten about the rumoured=
plan=20
to transfer them complete to Boston Spa. Having remained silent (while=
=20
feeling a little concerned about the possible loss of Hunslet's bells from =
their=20
original home) earlier, I just felt the need to stick up for the old b=
ells=20
a bit! Your comment "There are certainly far worse eights around than=
=20
Hunslet" sums it up quite well really - they are an old ring, very much of =
their=20
period, but not unacceptable, and you CAN get good / rewarding ringing=
on=20
them</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks to DLC for putting the record strai=
ght on=20
Halifax. For those who are interested, the last complete G&J ring from=
=20
Croydon was Cranleigh (bell numbers 7329-7336 - dedicated on 24 December 19=
54).=20
Goxhill (numbers 7366-7371) were cast at Loughborough but tuned at Croydon =
in=20
1955 - and 7371 is the last recorded number in the series (the later bells =
cast=20
for Gilletts at Loughborough were, however, not numbered). Calgary came lat=
er,=20
and are as described by DLC.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>CP</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0p=
x; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>Fro=
m:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:mtchilds@y..." title=3Dmtchilds@y...>Mich=
ael=20
Childs</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com"=20
title=3Dbellhistorians@yahoogroups.com>bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 10, 2003=
1:24=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell Historians]=20
Hunslet</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><TT>Chris<BR><BR>I appreciate your personal fondness for W=
arner=20
bells<BR>of that period, and as David said, the intention was<BR>never to=
=20
scrap the ring, but to have them transferred.<BR><BR>The original intenti=
on=20
was to create a new 8 from the<BR>back for of the Highfield chime, and to=
use=20
two of the<BR>chiming bells and two new Taylor bells. This would<BR>have=
=20
certainly made a fine ring, and it is a shame<BR>that the plan never came=
to=20
fruition. <BR><BR>A 13cwt 8 would be far more suitable for the=20
current<BR>tower, which remains after the body of the church was<BR>demol=
ished=20
and rebuilt in the 1970s. As a result of<BR>this there is considerable=20
movement, and having rung a<BR>peal on the 7th in the sweltering heat thi=
s=20
August I<BR>would not exactly describe the bells as "easy"!<BR><BR>It is=
=20
obvious that the locals also had a certain<BR>fondness for the bells, as =
in=20
1939 the decided to have<BR>four new chiming bells cast and the bells reh=
ung=20
in<BR>the existing wooden frame, instead of having the<BR>existing bells=
=20
recast.<BR><BR>There are certainly far worse eights around than<BR>Hunsle=
t,=20
and some of the peals I have rung there have<BR>been very good, but I don=
't=20
intend to ring one there<BR>in August=20
again!<BR><BR>Michael<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>=
<BR><BR>---=20
Chris Pickford <c.j.pickford@t...> wrote: ><BR>Michael Chi=
lds=20
wrote "Hunslet, ... are ... not<BR>> exactly rewarding!"<BR>> <BR>&=
gt;=20
I'd just like to enter a mild plea for slightly more<BR>> sympathetic=
=20
treatment of the existing eight at<BR>> Hunslet (Warner 1863 - tenor=20
18-1-19 - retuned by<BR>> Taylors in 1939). I have a slight fondness=20
for<BR>> Warner rings of this weight and period which I<BR>> genera=
lly=20
find more rewarding than Taylor or<BR>> Whitechapel rings of the 1870s=
and=20
1880s. I rather<BR>> enjoyed Hunslet when I rang in a peal there a=20
few<BR>> years back. <BR>> <BR>> I'm not under any illusions as =
to=20
their tonal<BR>> quality by modern standards, but I think they<BR>>=
=20
deserve better than being swept away for a lighter<BR>> peal. Variety =
is=20
important, and Hunslet are a<BR>> better-than-average example of a=20
mid-Victorian ring<BR>> of their type - and by no means difficult to=20
ring. <BR>> <BR>> A mild plea, as I say, for taking stock of=
=20
the<BR>> merits of the existing bells - and a challenge to<BR>> the=
view=20
that newer and lighter automatically equals<BR>> better.<BR>> <BR>&=
gt;=20
CP <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =20
<BR><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR><P><FONT face=3D"Arial Black" size=3D=
3>Michael Childs=20
</FONT></P><BR><P><A=20
href=3D"mailto:mtchilds@y..."><FONT face=3D"Arial Black"=20
size=3D3>mtchilds@y...</FONT></A></P><BR><BR>=
________________________________________________________________________<BR=
>BT=20
Yahoo! Broadband - Save =A380 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer e=
nds=20
21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. <A=20
href=3D"http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D21064/*http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk">h=
ttp://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D21064/*http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk</A><BR></TT><=
BR><BR><TT>This=20
message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To unsubsc=
ribe=20
from the list send an email to=20
bellhistorians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR><BR>Web: <A=20
href=3D"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bellhistorians/">http://groups.yaho=
o.com/group/bellhistorians/</A></TT>=20
<BR><BR><TT>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A=20
href=3D"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</A>.</=
TT>=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>