-------------------------------1113768493 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am firmly of the opinion that accurately cast maiden bells can sound better that those which have had the casting skin broken by tuning. In the early days (well I say early - we only started in 1989) of casting mini-ring bells with Richard Bowditch, some of our patterns were rather hit and miss. We cast bells which were "Thick n thin" and then machined the inside true to the outside - which greatly improved their tone. After further experiments, we had a better set of patterns turned up, where the inner and outer skins were true to each other from the start. These maiden bells sound the best of all. After tuning, they still sound good, but the resonance seems to die away quicker - leading me to believe that leaving the casting skin intact, is beneficial. To continue our experiment further - we recently cast a like for like replica of the 1920 G&J 7th from the chime of 8 from Kennerleigh, Devon (which are currently in for restoration). The original bell is superb in every respect, and has been tuned from crown to lip (very neatly too). The "maiden" replica sounds just as good and resonates for around 10 seconds longer! Also in are the 1897 Taylor five from Rosscarbery. These are truly wonderful full bodied bells - with minimal tuning (just 3 small bands in bells 1,2,3 and 5 and a little more on the 4th). These bells resonate for longer than the 1938 G&J bells for Hampstead (also currently in our works - hardly room to swing a cat at the mo) which have again been tuned from crown to lip. I also looked at the 1897 back 8 at Towcester a few weeks ago - and wasn't surprised to see very little tuning marks - in fact, is the 9th a maiden bell? To me these bells sound different (and better) to a lot of other Taylor rings, but why? Is it 1) down to the profiles being different? 2) Is it due to the (lack of) tuning? 3) Is it all down to the fab tower acoustics? Hmm - I am inclined to think that it's all three! I know that Taylors changed their profiles sometime during the 1930's to provide a sharper tierce, mainly for the carillon trade I am told. G&J shapes are obviously very different again. My guess is that a good, well cast maiden bell is better than all. I also agree with Nick Davies comments on "voicing". All good fun, eh? Matthew In his letter in this week's Ringing World, Nick Davies suggests that heavy tuning of new bells is a relatively recent practice, and that rings cast in the earlier part of the twentieth century were not tuned so heavily. I cannot agree with this, as having inspected many bells of all ages it is my experience that many of the 'classic' rings of the earlier part of the C20 were in fact heavily cut on the tuning machine. For example, the bells of York Minster (cast in 1925 and widely regarded as one of Taylor's finest rings) have all been heavily tuned, with the tenor being reduced from an as-cast weight of 72-2-0 to its present 59-1-23 in the process. Likewise, the extremely fine tenor bell at Exeter Cathedral (Taylor 1902) has been tuned throughout its inside. Matthew Higby & Co Ltd, Church Bell Engineers. Jasmine Cottage, The Street, Chilcompton, Bath, BA3 4HN. -------------------------------1113768493 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am firmly of the opinion that accurately cast maiden bells can sound= =20 better that those which have had the casting skin broken by tuning. In the = early=20 days (well I say early - we only started in 1989) of casting mini-ring bell= s=20 with Richard Bowditch, some of our patterns were rather hit and miss. We ca= st=20 bells which were "Thick n thin" and then machined the inside true to the ou= tside=20 - which greatly improved their tone. After further experiments, we had a be= tter=20 set of patterns turned up, where the inner and outer skins were true to eac= h=20 other from the start. These maiden bells sound the best of all. After tunin= g,=20 they still sound good, but the resonance seems to die away quicker - leadin= g me=20 to believe that leaving the casting skin intact, is beneficial.
 
To continue our experiment further - we recently cast a like for like= =20 replica of the 1920 G&J 7th from the chime of 8 from Kennerleigh, Devon= =20 (which are currently in for restoration). The original bell is superb in ev= ery=20 respect, and has been tuned from crown to lip (very neatly too). The "maide= n"=20 replica sounds just as good and resonates for around 10=20 seconds longer!
 
Also in are the 1897 Taylor five from Rosscarbery. These are truly=20 wonderful full bodied bells - with minimal tuning (just 3 small b= ands=20 in bells 1,2,3 and 5 and a little more on the 4th).
These bells resonate for longer than the 1938 G&J bells for Hampst= ead=20 (also currently in our works - hardly room to swing a cat at the mo) which = have=20 again been tuned from crown to lip.
 
I also looked at the 1897 back 8 at Towcester a few weeks ago - and wa= sn't=20 surprised to see very little tuning marks - in fact, is the 9th a maiden be= ll?=20
To me these bells sound different (and better) to a lot of other= =20 Taylor rings, but why? Is it
1) down to the profiles being different?
2) Is it due to the (lack of) tuning? 
3) Is it all down to the fab tower acoustics? 
Hmm - I am inclined to think that it's all three!
I know that Taylors changed their profiles sometime during the 1930's = to=20 provide a sharper tierce, mainly for the carillon trade I am told. G&J= =20 shapes are obviously very different again.
 
My guess is that a good, well cast maiden bell is better than all.
 
I also agree with Nick Davies comments on "voicing".
 
All good fun, eh?
 
Matthew
 
=
In his letter in this week's Ringing Wor= ld, Nick=20 Davies suggests that heavy tuning of new bells is a relatively recent=20 practice, and that rings cast in the earlier part of the twentieth centur= y=20 were not tuned so heavily. I cannot agree with this, as having inspected = many=20 bells of all ages it is my experience that many of the 'classic' rings of= the=20 earlier part of the C20 were in fact heavily cut on the tuning machine. F= or=20 example, the bells of York Minster (cast in 1925 and widely regarded as o= ne of=20 Taylor's finest rings) have all been heavily tuned, with the tenor being= =20 reduced from an as-cast weight of 72-2-0 to its present 59-1-23 in the=20 process. Likewise, the extremely fine tenor bell at Exeter Cathedral= =20 (Taylor 1902) has been tuned throughout its=20 inside.
 
Matthew Higby=20 & Co Ltd,
Church Bell Engineers.
Jasmine Cottage,
The=20 Street,
Chilcompton,
Bath,
BA3 4HN.
-------------------------------1113768493--