<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><!-- Network content -->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>As Giles says, this was aired some months
ago. I did post my views, and I was rather surprised that nobody picked up on it
(unless it was one of those messages that disappeared into the
ether)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Basically, I don't regard them as
"accurate weights". Accuracy or exactitude seems to be impossible to attain, and
I share the view that it doesn't really matter anyway within a few
pounds</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I see them as "<STRONG>recorded</STRONG>
weights". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>This is different, first in that it
implies a chronology - a bell may have different weights at different times in
its history (either after work or merely at different
weighings). Second (and for the purposes of "Dove" etc) it has the
merit that the information required is the most recent weight (and, to be
semantic, whether or not it happens to be strictly "accurate"). In other words,
it's about accuracy of source data first - and (since we know there are problems
in establishing exact weights) accuracy of weight second. This way, at
least we a) know what we're quoting, and b) give the latest available
information</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>That said, I do think it is important a)
to be sure of the source and date of any weight or set of weights, and b) to
record the information accurately as part of the basic set of data about a
bell or set of bells. For "Dove" (and any list or publication citing a single
weight - rather than a sequence of weights - for an extant bell) the weight must
always be the last recorded one (with the one exception below). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>John Baldwin's use of the "less than"
symbol as a prefix to a previously recorded "exact" weight seems a very simple
and sensible solution to cases (e.g. canon removal) where the weight has been
reduced since the last actual weighing</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>For all but the extreme purist (for whom
nothing other than a 100% accurate weight will do), this approach should offer a
workable solution to the problem of discrepancies. Provided you know what weight
comes from where (and the chronology), the "right answer" will declare
itself. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I don't know the answer at Atlanta,
but 13-1-14 is the old weight of the bell when it was at Escrick. It was
presumably retuned or re-weighed during the transfer process. It may have been
retuned at Whitechapel (who will have recorded a weight) and again weighed again
by E&S after drilling etc. Or it may have just been re-weighed, hence the
discrepancy of just 2lbs. As I say, no answers here - but that's the thought
process to follow</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>CJP</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>