<!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 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sam asks about lists. Peter quotes comments in
Sharpe's Herefordshire and from Bliss & Sharpe Gloucestershire</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just to say that over many years I have worked on a
complete listing of all Rudhall bells - past and present - and have assembled
information from a wide range of sources. In particular, I have collated the
details of surviving bells with the published Rudhall catalogues and undertaken
documentary research to establish the dates (and other details) of bells that no
longer survive. The result is a list of some 5500 bells (i.e. rather more than
the figure often quoted). Needless to say, this list is on paper - and it's at
home in England. I've been gradually transferring the details to a spreadsheet
and (critically for the question raised by Mike Chester and by Sam) it's at this
stage that I'm updating the entries to indicate which bells still survive and
which have been lost.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So to the question "is there a list?", the answer
is yes and no. There is a pretty comprehensive base list, but it doesn't (yet)
reliable indicate which rings are still complete and intact. The end product
should be a list that identifies surviving rings, shows output levels at
different times in the history of the foundry (the original purpose of my
listing), and "then and now" figures for both numbers of bells and rings
produced. It is primarily a tool for historical analysis, but also contains data
for individual bells and rings.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is, of course, a slight problem in defining a
complete Rudhall ring. I don't accept Fred Sharpe's "stock bell" theory - the
foundry output was never large enough to have supported an off-the-shelf supply
to prospective purchasers - but odd bells that didn't quite fit for one job
were quite frequently "recycled". CD and I have recently made quite an
interesting discovery about a ring in Wiltshire in which several "rejects"
(traceable from their partially erased inscriptions) were used - you'll have to
wait for his book to find out more! But "complete rings" - supplied as a set and
at the same time - do quite often contain bells of more than one date. Alongside
this, it was fairly common for bells to be replaced within a short time of
installation - there are several documented instances as well as suspected ones
- and also cases where a treble was added a year or so after the main set was
renewed. Together, this means that it's quite hard to definitively state whether
or not a mixed-date ring is "complete" or not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Turning to the Sharpe / Bliss comments, it is
certainly true that the number of surviving rings is much lower than the number
originally produced - "becoming rare" is a fair summary. But theirs is a rather
geographically limited perspective. Moreover (having researched this at the time
of their recent restoration) the significance of Prestbury is much exaggerated.
Looking at the bigger picture, there are up to ten complete rings of six by Abel
Rudhall left - and two complete eights - and quite a lot more where only one
bell has been recast (in some instances by a later Rudhall)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Reflecting on this, it illustrates how complex
decisions on preservation and tuning can be - what really counts as significant?
what really needs to be preserved? where does quality come into the
equation? and (most of all) do those charged with decision-making or in
advisory positions have the knowledge and information on which to make
sound judgments? In case anyone reads this as me saying "I'm the only person
with the knowledge - it should be me" can I just stress this is not at all what
I am saying. But I do believe that we historians should avoid misleading
comments like the Prestbury one cited and look instead to providing
information suitable for decision-making.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CP</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=combineharvestersam@k4tODhuwoLxjCz8vgPa6s6Uyf-60u5poOmMw0OkAH_CWqthYGcHZPnYO2YB_m0b0aDUL-2jLxDJOV3NGFnt5kd_6MlwLnVSFaHUPb94.yahoo.invalid
href="mailto:combineharvestersam@lPOh1M2bsFKEXPPGuhqiw0Z8gnm91_906gR3UmVlTQRJggRAba3YbnGR_qD1PkXTiiNax_X1KZ0e_T4EE9vsjL1ysIWkXVUw.yahoo.invalid">Samuel Austin</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:54
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Bell Historians] Rudhall
Rings</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>Would it be worth compiling a list of complete Rudhall<BR>rings (unless
someone has already!)?<BR><BR>I really like rings cast by both Abraham
Rudhalls.<BR><BR>Rings like St Giles Lincoln and Wrexham are truly<BR>superb,
plus the many other lesser known rings of 5<BR>and. 6<BR><BR>Abel Rudhall
wasn't bad but the tonal quality of the<BR>bells seems to get worse the later
they were cast,<BR>some of John Rudhall's bells aren't
particularly<BR>tuneful<BR><BR>Aye<BR><BR>Sam<BR><BR>--- Peter Rivet <<A
href="mailto:peter%40plrivet.plus.com">peter@plrivet.<WBR>plus.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>> When Fred Sharpe wrote up Herefordshire bells he<BR>>
commented that complete<BR>> rings of bells by the Rudhalls were becoming
rare,<BR>> and Mary Bliss in her<BR>> Gloucestershire book notes that
the back six at<BR>> Prestbury (Abel Rudhall<BR>> 1748) are the only
complete ring by him remaining in<BR>> the Diocese.<BR>> <BR>>
However they are by no means extinct. Near<BR>> Lancaster we have
complete<BR>> Rudhall rings at Cockerham (6) which are all Abel<BR>>
Rudhall 1748 and Melling<BR>> (6) which are Abel Rudhall 1753-4. We also
have the<BR>> back six of the eight<BR>> at Hornby, which were cast at
the Gloucester foundry<BR>> during the period when<BR>> it was under
Francis Tyler's management in 1761.<BR>> <BR>> And at Boston (Mass) the
eight at Old North Church<BR>> are as I understand it<BR>> still a
complete Abel Rudhall eight of 1744.<BR>> <BR>> Peter Rivet<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A>]On
Behalf Of<BR>> Mike Chester<BR>> Sent: 14 November 2006 09:45<BR>>
To: <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A><BR>>
Subject: [Bell Historians] Rudhall Rings<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The
Hawarden website says that they are the only<BR>> complete Rudhall<BR>>
ring. I find this surprising for some reason. Is<BR>> this claim
true,<BR>> based on being a ring by one Rudhall only?<BR>> <BR>>
Mike<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR>____________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<WBR>_________<WBR>_<BR>Want
to start your own business?<BR>Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.<BR><A
href="http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index">http://smallbusines<WBR>s.yahoo.com/<WBR>r-index</A><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>