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>I think Chris's 'three points' deserve att=
ention -=20
though it doesn't solve the Woodchurch problem; and Chris Povey's point abo=
ut=20
undrilled bells going through the hands of non-founding bellhangers after s=
upply=20
is a valid one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is when you come to "weights supplied w=
ith=20
bells" and here are three examples.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>WHITSTABLE St Alphege Seasalter. On 1st Au=
gust 1969=20
we took delivery from Whitechapel of a ring of six bells complete with a to=
wer=20
record showing the tenor as 3-1-13, the weight that has always been publish=
ed.=20
On August 19th the invoice was rendered (<U>CB/33/69</U>) which included=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM>"-From metal provided from Tottin=
gton=20
Church bells, casting a peal of six with the Tenor 2' 0" in diameter,=
=20
weighing C 3.3.1 and a total weight of C 12.0.11. All accurately and=
=20
harmonically tuned in the key of 'G'. " =20=20
</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The total weight of the bells is that with=
the=20
3-1-13 tenor - was this a typist's error or what? I have not examined =
the=20
settings or tuning records. All the other weights in the invoice - 15-=
1-17=20
of bells from Tottington, 12-2-17 for the existing church bell and 7-0-17 f=
or=20
the tubes - are all as weighed in. I did not query it then as the total wei=
ght=20
charged for was as set with the 3-1-13 tenor.</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Two archaic weights - 3-2-25 (1969: 3-2-5)=
for=20
Tottington treble (JT 1851) and 12-2-23 for the existing bell are xplained =
by=20
more accurate modern scales.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Next one is G&J. We have already discu=
ssed St=20
Nicholas Leicester (Tower record 22.0.14; tuning books 22.0.0.; invoiced we=
ight=20
22.0.14). But go to Tunbridge Wells, St Luke on <A=20
href=3D"http://kent.lovesguide.com">http://kent.lovesguide.com</A> and see =
the=20
significant discrepancies in each bell between what is in the tuning books =
in=20
Croydon library and what is in the framed record in the tower. It would be=
=20
interesting to compare the exactly contemporary tower record of the bells o=
f=20
almost identical size with the tuning records at Croydon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As to JT&Co, Chris Povey pointed =
out the=20
'pencilling in' of the Evesham record. Other examples have been=20
identified. An interesting one is the ex-Bishop Latimer ring now at Pe=
rry=20
Barr. The bells were cast in 1957 (5th in 1904) and were received back in 1=
972.=20
The weights recorded for the front six show "Woodchurch" type=20
discrepancies:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sent Off &nbs=
p;=20
Nett</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1957</FONT> <FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> 1972</FONT>=
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>4-0-6 4=
-0-7</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4-0-26 =
=20
4-0-25</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>4-2-7 =20
4-2-7</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>5-0-3 =20
5-0-1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>6-0-14 =
=20
6-0-11</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>7-1-16 =
=20
7-1-13</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>-  =
; 10-0-12</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>- =20
13-3-22#</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2># Note says 'given later as 14-0-8'</FONT>=
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>CJP and I met at the Johnson on Saturday e=
vening=20
and I suggested that we might test the accuracy of WBF/JT scales by sitting=
on=20
each and seeing which side went down furthest in each case!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>DLC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </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:c.j.pickford.t21@b..."=20
title=3Dc.j.pickford.t21@b...>CHRIS PICKFORD</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> Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:=
25=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell Historians] Re:=
=20
Woodchurch etc</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Must be brief - I'm supposed to be worki=
ng to=20
meet a deadline! - but I'd like to just add a couple of points (apart fro=
m=20
pointing out that Giles has mistaken me for Chris Dalton)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I did take the point made by Giles, even=
though=20
it may not have been clear in my answer, and I agree with him that this i=
s=20
nothing about history proper (i.e. interpretation, use of evidence to mak=
e=20
sense of things). It's simply about documenting or recording what exists =
and=20
here (to repeat what I said) the only significance of a weight is as one=
=20
element in a range of physical data about a bell. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Others (Mark Regan, for one) have alread=
y made=20
the point on this list that Bell History is a misnomer for what we do whe=
n we=20
record and document the contents of our belfries. But the fact that it is=
n't=20
"history" doesn't make the activity any less valid. We need an accurate r=
ecord=20
of what exists, and the Woodchurch debate sits very comfortably in this=20
context as we're trying to establish what is the "correct" weight (not=20
necessarily an accurate one - even though this is the ideal)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Andrew Bull has helpfully stated that th=
e key=20
thing about recorded weights is that they represent an actual weighing on=
=20
scales - never mind the issue of accuracy for a moment - at a particular =
point=20
in time. For me, there are a couple of main points:</FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If a weight is quoted, I want to know t=
he=20
source</FONT>=20
<LI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If several weights are quoted at differ=
ent=20
periods, then I want to know which is which (i.e. what weight was "curr=
ent"=20
at what date)</FONT>=20
<LI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If a discrepancy is found, then I want =
to try=20
and establish the correct information by checking at source (and in the=
=20
majority of cases this produced definitive answers, at least with regar=
d to=20
"recorded" weights)</FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On Woodchurch, it's clear that there are=
two=20
possible recorded weights - both reliable in their way (and if the=20
bell was weighed again, the result would probably be neither 4-0-3 o=
r=20
3-3-27, of course). As I've said, I hope that Whitechapel can clarify. It=
may=20
turn out to be a simple error in that the wrong weight was entered in the=
book=20
- but there may be another explanation. Nigel?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris Pickford</FONT></DIV><BR></BODY></=
HTML>