<!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 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=richard.offen@s1NkxZAArNm4bmclRcZN_5NaHyxlYWIxOQC8s7TIfdb0EAAYrI3gv281po3oFP-YIAO6OTYRok3qGkqeDkNT_cFnB2o-fCS2cZw.yahoo.invalid
href="mailto:richard.offen@FFQ_xsIbYBngp_w2FUO9_Q13NEBpNOw300AktvacFIuuNKmsKsxeNInVke0T7xY8BUVDDlZw1zRxcTn0RMMr2toyKw.yahoo.invalid">Richard Offen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@fJLeuT0m2CyBED-AYlr2QF512DT8vNkCwkxpY0czkrMmQFBURtNn2KaLC3U21v8NX1mU08ZGTMDd0j_TFxSV3YmqIDmA.yahoo.invalidom</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:31 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell Historians] Eastry Sanctus Bell</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-mlmsg style="WIDTH: 655px; POSITION: relative">
<DIV id=ygrp-msg
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 15px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; Z-INDEX: 1; FLOAT: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; WIDTH: 490px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>DLC 21.3.07 Re Eastry Kent 3rd: The odd thing is that
JT&Co, when <BR>estimating for recasting, slagged off the welding option,
amongst <BR>other things, because the cracked bell was "deficient in weight and
<BR>thickness". And the new bell is 2 1/2" inches SMALLER and no doubt
<BR>around 2-cwt lighter than the "deficient" bell.<BR><BR>RCO 22.3.07 My
apologies for referring to the fourth at Eastry, I meant the <BR>third - it was
late at night when I posted my communication!<BR><BR>I entirely agree with David
that the treble is an excellent bell (as <BR>one would expect from a 1902 Taylor
bell), but the third! Is it <BR>really a true-harmonic bell? My memory must be
even worse than I <BR>thought! I remember that we were singularly unimpressed
when we <BR>(the KCACR bell hanging team) hung the new bell and tried the
<BR>refashioned five out!</P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>DLC 22.3.07. Well, I have Richard's own very
detailed record of the day that the refashioned five was tried out.
As he compares above the Taylor 1902 treble with the third, </FONT><FONT
face=Arial>this makes an interesting comparison with the notes of 20th December
1975, in which the treble is called "good" and the new third "quite
good".</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>As to being true-harmonic, I quote Alan Hughes writing on
26th April 1996: "The treble and 3rd bells are conspicuously brighter than the
remainder as they were cast and tuned to the modern 'Simpson' five toned
standard."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>As to its quality, Alan stated that "the replacement
3rd.....is a perfectly good bell".</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Now as to the old third, I reported in January
1970 that it was still of fair tone but that the crack was then 14" long
reaching almost to the shoulder. Taylors had originally noted the crack in 1934,
and by 1973 it had reached the shoulder.Taylors were actively discouraging
welding (Soundweld did not offer a guaratee at the time) and stating that
recasting would guarantee a sound bell which would agree in tuning: "there is no
certainity" they said "that a welded bell will agree in this way". They then
went on that the bell was too light and thin - and then went on, as I have
said before, to provide a replacement 2 1/2 inches smaller and nearly
</FONT><FONT face=Arial>2-cwt lighter than the old bell. </FONT> <FONT
face=Arial>Thus the size relationship of the bells went 33 5/8" - 36 1/4" - 37
3/8" [was 39 7/8"] - 43 7/8" - 47 1/4".</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>No-one could remember the old third before it was cracked,
but the only other Kent bell by its founder, Henry Wilnar of Borden, is the
larger of two at Challock, q.v. Dickon's excellent site. It has been tuned and
is an excellent bell. It is only a little smaller, and its proportions
are similar to the old Eastry 3rd. Comparison with other bells which have been
welded in the crown suggests that original pitch and sonority are
restored.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Well, it wasn't welded, as we had urged, but preserved
on account of its rarity. The somewhat random relationship of the present bells
to the tenor (19#, 19 1/2#, 21 #, 12 1/4#, 0) makes the presence of two Simpson
bells in a mixed ring a bit of a red herring at present. They certainly offer
possibilities. It is interesting however that both bellfoundries comment on the
old 3rd:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>John Taylor (Bellfounders) Ltd (January 1996):"The Diocesan
Advisor's suggestion to reintroduce the old third bell into the peal after
welding it finds favour with us. Our investigations into the tonal qualities of
this bell indicate this as practical folloowing the tuning of the remaining
bells". Whitechapel (April 1996): "The previous third bell in terms of
it</FONT><FONT face=Arial>s, size is a far better match with its neighbours than
the bell that replaced it.(It) could be repaired by welding and put back into
the peal".</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>From what Richard says, other counsels are to prevail. Both
the 1975 memorial bell and its predecessor which had served the parish so
well and so long are to preserved, the latter in continued retirement and
silence. We can only await the results of tuning, but as to the balance in size
and weight, there is no doubt that there is a conspicuous hiccup in the
middle. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>DLC</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P>
<P> <BR><BR><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>