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 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Richard asked for the pitches of Mangotsfi=
eld,=20
Warners 1920, replaced by a new ring by Taylors 1992, so here goes:</FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Treble: 1760; 1335; 1050; 825; 441</FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2nd: 1650; 1241; 9=
92; 750;=20
419</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3rd 14=
88; 1113;=20
878; 715; 367</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4th =20
1321; 976; 787; 640; 326</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>5th 1175; 886; 700;=
580;=20
298</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>6th 10=
75; =20
825; 648; 555; 276</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>7th 9=
88; =20
727; 595; 495; 256</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tenor 884; 650; 530; 42=
5;=20
229</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The nominals were fairly well in=
line,=20
excepting the 6th, which were half a semitone flat:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The fundamentals were flat except on =
the 6th=20
and 7th; the trebles being conspicuously so:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The hums were flat, except on the 3rd and =
4th which=20
were a little sharp.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The arrangement of the octave notes (nomin=
al,=20
fundamental, hum) was thus</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Treble: A =
=20
G#-0.12 A+0.04 =
=20
23.5/8" =20
3-1-27</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>2nd: G#-0.12</FONT> &n=
bsp;=20
F#+0.23 G#+0.15 =20
24.3/4" 3-2-12</DIV>
<DIV>3rd =20
F#+0.09 F+0.39 F#-0.15 &=
nbsp; =20
25.1/2" =
=20
3-3-23</DIV>
<DIV>4th =20
E+0.03 D#+0.48 E-0.2 &n=
bsp;=20
=20
26.3/4" 4-0-18</DIV>
<DIV>5th D =20
=20
D-0.22 D+0.25 &n=
bsp;=20
28.3/4" 5-0-16  =
;=20
</DIV>
<DIV>6th C#-0.54 =20
C#-0.02 C#-0.08 =20
=20
30" 5-3-4<=
/DIV>
<DIV>7th B =20
=20
B+0.03 C-0.38 &nb=
sp; 32.7/8"  =
; =20
7-0-0</DIV>
<DIV>Tenor A+0.08 =20
G#+0.39 A#-0.31 =20
35.5/8" 10-0-6</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The nominals were all checked by Alan Hughes in the tower, and were al=
l=20
found to be correct or within 1 or 2 Hz at the most. The weights are those=
=20
recorded by Taylors when they broke the bells up; the front six only margin=
ally=20
heavy for their diameters but the 7th and particularly the tenor very much =
more=20
so.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The profiles varied; the tenor was a strange-looking bell, almost=
=20
tub-shaped, with a fat waist and only a slight soundbow=20
projection. This appeared to have been necessary to get it in. All th=
e=20
bells had been machined full height, the trebles viciously so up in their c=
rowns=20
with predictable results. Quite why the 6th nominal was so flat was not cle=
ar,=20
especially as the fundamental and hum were closer to their intended pitches=
=20
than most of the others.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tonally, the 5th and 7th were very fair and the 3rd and 4th fair. The =
two=20
trebles sounded horrible; the sixth was 'sour' according to my notes a=
nd=20
the tenor 'curious'. This, however, is a subjective assessment.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Both foundries were prepared to attempt to tune the bells, one more=20
reluctantly so than the other. Both warned that the tuned ring would in no =
way=20
compare in quality with a new one. They also said that a 3 ft tenor wi=
th a=20
reputed weight of 10-cwt (which both doubted, but was in fact the case)&nbs=
p;was=20
a little on the large side for this tower (frames set diagonally; 2,3, and =
7=20
above). Both also quoted for rings with tenors of 2' 10", 2' 8" and 2' 7".<=
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I was (a) looking after the parish and (b) Diocesan bells adviser and =
from=20
the parish point of view, I knew that they wanted eight bells they could ri=
ng=20
(the back three were by that time unsafe) and which sounded pleasant - and =
which=20
were not a local joke, not just among ringers. At the same time=20
there remained the fact that this was the last ring of eight which War=
ner's=20
cast, and therefore of interest and that a job could be achieved on th=
em in=20
terms of ringability at considerably less expense than purchasing a new rin=
g of=20
bells. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I considered that it would be necessary to recast the two trebles in a=
ny=20
case; they were very thin in the crown and heavy down below; and there woul=
d be=20
problems if it was proposed to lower the nominals of the rest to cope with =
the=20
sixth. On the other hand, if that bell was recast, there would be less cutt=
ing=20
to do on the rest. From its shape (see the photo accompanying my article in=
the=20
Comic, 10.12.93, p.1210) I felt that the tenor was in any case an unpredict=
able=20
item. If any of these bells were recast, the integrity of the last Warner e=
ight=20
would be compromised. I knew also that some would be disappointed with=
the=20
loss of such a ring and its replacement with a lighter one. But that was th=
e=20
advice I gave, and I have to say that the parish and the ringers in Brsitol=
and=20
locally, and I myself were very pleased indeed with the result.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am sorry that CD doesn't think much of the new bells; and of course =
there=20
is an element of regret that the old ones had to go, just as there had=
=20
been, so I am told, some element of regret when they replaced an historic r=
ing=20
of six.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That came in a private letter written by J=
ohn=20
Jefferies, the tower master under whom the 1920 work was done, and includes=
=20
these words: "They have gone in very well, and ring very nicely, but the be=
lls=20
themselves I am disgusted with".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One of the problems we sometimes encounter=
is that=20
of metal content. Certainly the Mangotsfield bells were extraordinarily=20
difficult to break up - and, like most of Warner' products, they were very =
good=20
castings in themselves. The metal had to be sent away for analysis. As ADH =
put=20
it, "I don't quite know what they used by way of bellmetal, but it certainl=
y=20
isn't our usual spec.....suffice it to say that the bells were more incline=
d to=20
bend than break" ! I feel that this unknown factor - and it is easy t=
o be=20
wise after the event - justified the course taken.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But it is good to hear of the satisfactory=
outcome=20
of the restoration of Broad Blunsdon. That project was started when I was s=
till=20
the Bristol Diocesan Bells Adviser, and I've just looked up my notes and fi=
nd=20
that I did in that case recommend tuning the bells. They were of course cas=
t in=20
1913, not 1920, and those seven years in the case of Warner's, made all the=
=20
difference.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>DLC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial> </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>