-------------------------------1130949033 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The fabricated steel hoop type canon retainers now produced by WBF and several other firms, seem to be the best so far for mixing with standard stocks. These are made bespoke to suit each individual bell - where as cast iron canon retainers are generally "Lets see which standard size fits best". I do have some sympathy with what CD said some time ago though "The best canon retainer is wooden" but then bells come in all shapes and sizes. One or two that we have rehung recently have massive canons compared to the size of bell - Whitmore 3rd and Little Wymondley tenor spring to mind - and therefore the retainers have had to be large too! Cheers, Matthew exactly. I can think of a 1960s rehung ring all on canon retainers which are sluggish. A much more recent rehang by the same company was done at a location where four of the bells have canon retainers and the others have normal stocks and you can still tell the difference. The Tenor is also difficult to get up right no matter who rings it up in peal and it is not a large bell (it is also on a canon retainer). I think the whole preservation thing has worked out not too well in general. By all means preserve, but only when it is practical- If someone decided that an 1845 Mears lowside frame was worthy of preservation even though it was rotten, I would say they needed thier head looking at, after all there are loads of old mears frames knocking about. If something is unique, preserve it as best as is possible as long as it is cost effective and sensible to do so. Perhaps the Excercise has allowed too much to pass when it comes to long lasting, cost effective, practical bell renovation. Where was that eight where only limited work was allowed to be carried out? Staunton Harrold? >From what I understand, the bells are difficult to ring even in very experianced hands even after some renovation work. I see a case such as this as throwing good money after bad even though I am sure the work was proposed and done with the best of intentions. preservation of something is not always the best way forward if the thing being preserved is in regular use. As regards canons, better to have the buggers off and give everyone a level playing field (hangers and ringers) I would have said- that is of course unless they are on very rare bells or have some ornamentation on them. Alann Matthew Higby & Company Ltd, Church Bell Engineers, Jasmine Cottage, The Street, Chilcompton, Bath, BA3 4HN. www.bell-hangers.com -------------------------------1130949033 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
= exactly.
I can think of a 1960s rehung ri= ng all=20 on canon retainers which are
sluggish.
A much more recent rehang b= y the=20 same company was done at a location
where four of the bells have cano= n=20 retainers and the others have
normal stocks and you can still tell th= e=20 difference.
The Tenor is also difficult to get up right no matter who = rings=20 it
up in peal and it is not a large bell (it is also on a canon=20
retainer).
I think the whole preservation thing has w= orked=20 out not too well
in general.
By all means preserve, but only when = it is=20 practical- If someone
decided that an 1845 Mears lowside frame was wo= rthy=20 of preservation
even though it was rotten, I would say they needed th= ier=20 head looking
at, after all there are loads of old mears frames knocki= ng=20 about.
If something is unique, preserve it as best as is possible as l= ong=20
as it is cost effective and sensible to do so.
Perhaps the Excerci= se=20 has allowed too much to pass when it comes to
long lasting, cost=20 effective, practical bell renovation.
Where was that eight where only= =20 limited work was allowed to be
carried out? Staunton Harrold?
From= what=20 I understand, the bells are difficult to ring even in very
experiance= d=20 hands even after some renovation work.
I see a case such = as=20 this as throwing good money after bad even
though I am sure the work = was=20 proposed and done with the best of
intentions.
preservation of=20 something is not always the best way forward if the
thing being prese= rved=20 is in regular use.
As regards canons, better to have the= =20 buggers off and give
everyone a level playing field (hangers and ring= ers)=20 I would have
said- that is of course unless they are on very rare bel= ls or=20 have
some ornamentation on them.
Alann